Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1655; 1986CriLJ14; 1985(2)Crimes378(SC); 1985MhLJ736(SC); 1985(2)SCALE254; (1985)3SCC606; [1985]Supp2SCR345
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by Certificate under Article 134 of the Constitution of India arises out of a judgment dated 3/6.9.76 of the Bombay High Court affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant imposed by the trial court.2. The short point on which certificate was granted and the case has been argued by both the parties falls within a very narrow compass. The appellant, who was a Municipal Councillor, was prosecuted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The High Court, after holding that sanction by the competent authority to prosecute the appellant was valid, confirmed his conviction and sentence. Hence, this appeal.3. The counsel for the appellant argued that as a Municipal Councillor was not a 'public servant' within the meaning of Section 21 of the IPC, he could not be prosecuted under the Act even if sanction for his prosecution was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1411; 1985(2)SCALE317; (1985)3SCC697; [1985]Supp2SCR349; 1985(17)LC830(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated February 27, 1978 of the High Court of Orissa allowing two writ petitions and quashing a notification issued by the State Government for the purpose of constituting a notified area under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950.2. The Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 provides for the Constitution of Municipalities and the application and enforcement of various provisions commonly found in legislation dealing with local self-government. They include provisions relating to public health, supply of water for domestic use, lighting, public and private drainage, conservancy, maintenance and repair of public roads, building regulations, markets, slaughter houses, burial and burning grounds, places of public resort and entertainment, as well as provisions for raising taxes to enable the Municipality to fulfil its function and obligations. Ordinarily, the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act apply to towns, fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1671; 1985CriLJ1859; 1985(2)SCALE663; 1985Supp(1)SCC266; 1985(17)LC1043(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana declining leave to the appellant under Sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the CrPC to appeal to the High Court against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh acquitting the respondent.2. The respondent, Dharam Singh and his father, Karam Singh were charged for an offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Vinod Kumar. In addition, a substantive charge was framed Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent. It appears that Vinod Kumar occupied a barsati above a shop-cum-flat in Sector 18D, Chandigarh along with Ram Lok. The respondent and his brother and their family lived on the floor immediately below the barsati. The case of the prosecution is that on March 1, 1974 at about 4.30 in the afternoon the two accused went up to the barsati and while Karam Singh caught hold of Vinod Kumar th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1644; 1985(2)SCALE291; (1985)4SCC30; [1985]Supp2SCR339; [1985]60STC80(SC); 1986(1)LC368(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. Whether a coconut (neither tender nor dried but a ripened coconut with or without husk) is a 'fresh fruit' or a 'vegetable' so as to earn exemption from the levy of sales tax under G.G. No. 1764 dated 5.4.1960 as amended on 22.12.1960 issued under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is the question raised in these appeals.2. The High Court has held that under the aforesaid notification the Government had exempted 'all sales of vegetables (other than the dried and dehydrated vegetables) fresh fruits, betal and plantain leaves, flowers, eggs, meat and fish (other than canned meat and fish)' from the levy of sales tax under the 1959 Act but since a ripened coconut in which the appellant was dealing as a grocer, could not be regarded as a 'fresh fruit' or a 'vegetable' the appellant's sales turn over in coconuts in each of the Assessment Years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 was liable to sales tax and includible in his taxable turnover. It is this view of the Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1663; 1986CriLJ15; 1985(2)Crimes875(SC); 1985(2)SCALE665; (1985)3SCC658; 1985(17)LC885(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing an appeal filed by the appellant and affirming his conviction and sentence for an offence Under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The appellant was the clerk of an advocate, Shri Prem Ghand Gupta, practising at Bulandshahr. One Kalli was an accused in a criminal case, and when his Pairokar was unable to persuade a Mohanir, Jaswant Singh, to secure Kalli's release on bail, the pairokar approached the appellant for that purpose. The advocate, Shri Prem Chand Gupta, moved an application for bail, and the application for bail was granted by the Judicial Magistrate, Shri Khem Singh, on October 16, 1968. The appellant prepared surety bonds and presented them before Shri Prem Chand Gupta in order that the advocate should identify the sureties and attest their status. Apparently because Shri Gupta did not know the sureties, he refused to identify them or att...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1125
1. Leave granted.2. This is a fit case in which the amendment prayed for by the appellant should have been allowed. The appellant merely wanted enhancement of the original claim of Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 3 lakhs on the ground that permanent disability to the extent of 50% was discovered alter he had filed his original claim. There is no reason why this amendment should not be granted. We therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court as also the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and allow the application of the appellant to amend the claim petition, as prayed for by him. The amendment will be carried out by the appellant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The respondents will file their supplementary written statement, if any, within 2 weeks from the date when the amendment is carried out. There will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1664; 1986CriLJ17; 1986(25)ELT145(SC); 1985(2)SCALE66; (1985)3SCC676
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. By our Order dated July 16, 1985, we had dismissed the appeals. : We now proceed to give reasons for the same.2. The prosecution case has been detailed in the judgments of the High Court and the trial court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. The accused, Keisam Kumar Singh, Bijoy Singh and Sagolsem Ibotom-cha Singh were put on trial before the Sessions Judge for an offence Under Section 302/34, IPC for causing murder of the deceased, Raghumani Singh,3. The entire case hinges on the evidence of the two eyewitnesses, PW 1 (Oken Singh) and PW 2 (Manihar Singh), who were actually friends of the deceased and belonged to the same village which was situated within the jurisdiction of Moirang police station.4. According to the prosecution, on December 14, 1970, PWs 1 and 2 accompanied by the deceased, went to Hotel Deluxe and took their meals in room No. 2 at about 4.30 p.m. Thereafter, they visited Usha Talkies to see the film 'Romeo &...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1651; 1985(2)SCALE72; (1985)3SCC711; [1985]Supp2SCR330
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. In the above cases the short question which arise for consideration is whether the appointment of the General Manager of Haryana Roadways as an officer who can exercise the powers exercisable by a Deputy Superintendent of P61ice under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Government of Haryana under the Notification dated March 16, 1973 issued under Section 133-A of the Act is valid or not.2. The appellant in the above appeal by special leave questioned the validity of the appointment of the General Manager of Haryana Roadways under the Notification, referred to above, as an officer entitled to exercise the powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, under the Act in Writ Petition No. 1770 of 1978 on the file of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court in limaine. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellant has preferred the above appeal. The petitioners in the ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC752; 1986CriLJ816
ORDERS. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellants have been convicted under Section 306, Indian Penal Code (Abetment to commit suicide).2. We have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. We find that there is no legal evidence at all to support the conviction of the appellants. The incident took place on 20-7-81 but the F.I. R. was lodged three days later at 5.10 p.m. This was because the brother of the deceased who lodged the F.I. R. was staying at a different place. Counsel for the respondent was unable to satisfy us that there was any dependable evidence in regard to the actual abetment, by any of the accused, for the deceased to commit suicide. On the other hand, there are certain important and innate circumstances which completely destroy the theory of abetment to commit suicide. In the first place it appears that the brother of the deceased (P.W. 1) stated that when the deceased visited him sometimes in May he was told by her ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1409; 1985CriLJ1640; 1985(2)Crimes602(SC); 1985(2)SCALE54; 1985Supp(1)SCC388; [1985]Supp2SCR325
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner, who is the wife of Simranjit Singh Mann, a detenu detained in the District Jail, Bharatpur, has filed this Writ Petition praying that the detention of the detenu in preventive custody may be located in the State of Punjab or at a place not far off, that the detenu should be provided with appropriate amenities and facilities, that he should not be kept in solitary confinement, and should be allowed interviews with his relatives and friends and his legal adviser from time to time. It is further prayed that certain provisions of the National Security (Rajasthan Conditions of Detention) Order, 1984 be declared ultra vires.2. The petitioner is represented by Mr. Hardev Singh, the State of Punjab by its Advocate General and the State of Rajasthan by Shri B.D Sharma. We have heard them at length on this petition. At the outset, it may be stated that Mr. dardev Singh diet not question the validity of the provisions of the National Security (Rajasthan Condition...
Tag this Judgment!