Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC654; 1994CriLJ639
1. The appellant was tried for an offence of causing the murder of Sunder. The trial Court acquitted him of the charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1957 by giving the benefit of right of private defence. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court disagreed with the verdict of the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and one year's R.I. under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.2. It is a case where much of the prosecution case is not in dispute. The deceased is the brother of P.W. 25 (Ranjit Singh). The deceased and accused live in the vicinity. It is alleged that the deceased used to receive love letters from the sister of the accused and because of that there was hostility between the accused and the deceased. P.W. 24 is another brother of the deceased. On 1-7-76 at about 8.30 P.M. the sister of P.W. 24 sent him to take out Anil, son of P.W. 25, for a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC859; 1994CriLJ951
1. The appellant was charged for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. and was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge for kidnapping a minor girl Asha Kumari aged 15 years on September 12,1969 from Mohalla Maripur in Muzaffarpur town. He was sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The High Court confirmed the same. Thus this appeal by special leave under Article 136.2. The narrative of the prosecution case is as follows:P.W. 4 Hardeo Thakur is the father of the minor girl. He and the appellant were doing potato business. On the previous night, namely, intervening night on 11th and 12th September, 1969, the appellant came to the house of P.W. 4 and the next morning he abducted the minor girl. She was seen being taken away by one of the witnesses whose evidence was recorded in the Committal Court. But before the trial was taken ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC799; JT1992(1)SC348; 1992(1)SCALE204; (1992)2SCC80; [1992]1SCR472; 1992(1)LC685(SC)
ORDERT.K. Thommen, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O.No. 59 of 1979 whereby the High Court, reversing the concurrent findings of the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal, allowed the respondent-landlord's application for eviction of the appellant-tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the 'Act'). The respondent is the daughter of the original landlord who had let out the premises to the appellant on 1.10.1961. The present respondent purchased the property from her father on 27th June, 1964 and thus stepped into his shoes as the 'landlord' as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act.2. Relying upon the Rent Note and the appellant's letters dated 7.10.1961 and 18.8.1962 addressed to the respondent's father and the earlier proceedings between them for eviction of the appellant on the ground of subletting the premises for commercial purposes, both the statutory authorities found that the premises which ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC675; 1992CriLJ777; 1992(1)Crimes666(SC); JT1992(3)SC16; 1992(1)SCALE202; (1992)2SCC406; [1992]1SCR466
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. Bhagwan Swaroop was charged under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Man Singh and under Section 307 IPC for an attempt to murder Shahid. He was further charged under Section 451 IPC for committing trespass and also under Section 25-A of Arms Act. Ramswaroop, father of Bhagwan Swaroop, was charged under Sections 109/302, 451 IPC and 29 of the Arms Act. Ramswaroop was acquitted of all the charges by the trial court, Bhagwan Swaroop was, however, convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was acquitted of the other two charges. The appeal filed by Bhagwan Swaroop was dismissed by the High Court. The High court allowed the State appeal and further convicted Bhagwan Swaroop under Section 307 IPC and Section 25-A Arms Act. He was sentenced to five years and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively for the said offences. This appeal before us by way of special leave is by Bhagwan Swaroop against his conviction and sentence on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1144; [1994]95STC488(SC)
ORDERS. Ranganathan, J.1. In this writ petition the assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad levying Central Sales Tax in respect of certain transactions of the petitioners is challenged. We are informed that the petitioners have already filed an appeal to the first appellate authority against the assessment which is pending. We are also told that there are certain other assessments on similar issues in which appeals are pending before the first appellate authority and, in one of the cases, even before the Appellate Tribunal. In this situation, we do not consider it appropriate to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.2. Counsel for the petitioners, however, points out that, in respect of the same transactions, the petitioners have paid local sales tax in various other States under their respective sales tax enactments. Both the petitioners and those State authorities proceeded on the footing that these are local sales and not inter-State sales. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC40
ORDERS. Ranganathan, V. Ramaswami and A.S. Anand, JJ.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner Company challenges the levy of Central Sales Tax on certain transactions. This levy was the result of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. The petitioner came to this Court at the stage when notice had been issued by the Deputy Commissioner. this Court issued a show cause notice and permitted the Deputy Commissioner to pass the revision order. This has been done some time in 1988. However, since this writ petition was pending in this Court challenging the proceedings, the petitioner did not file any appeal to the Tribunal. However, after the revision order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, there was an amendment of the writ petition and the order of the Deputy Commissioner was terms challenged. This amendment has been allowed.2. After hearing learned Counsel for both sides, we are of the opinion that since the petitioner has the remedy of a direct appeal to the Sales T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(83)ELT263(SC); 1995Supp(4)SCC565
ORDER1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Gujarat dated 1-2-1978. The appellant was debarred from the benefits of a compounded levy of excise duty for a period of nine months under Rule 92E(iii) for his having violated the conditions in terms of which he was given permission to run a Centrifugal Sugar Crushing Machine at a concessional rate of excise duty. There is no dispute that there was a violation of the conditions subject to which the permission was granted. Originally the debarment under Rule 92E(iii) was for a period of two years. That order came up before the Gujarat High Court which, by an order dated 6-5-1977, pointed out that in imposing a disqualification for a period of two years the authorities had failed to consider the impact and whether the penalty would be out of all proportion to the default in question. When the matter thus went back, the Government of India, after considering the revenue impact, directed the reduction of the period of debarment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC483; 1995Supp(4)SCC555
1. The appellant are aggrieved by the judgment of the Madras High Court upholding the validity of Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1976 (Act 36 of 1976). This Act published in the Gazette dated 30th August, 1976, came into force on l6th day of January, 1975.2. Section 7 of the Act provided that any cultivating tenant who had been evicted from any land on or after the 16th day of January, 1975 but before the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, on the ground that such cultivating tenant was in arrear with respect to the rent payable to the landlord shall, on application to the Revenue Divisional Officer within a period of three months after the date of such publication, be entitled to be, restored to possession of such land and to hold it with all the rights and subject to all the liabilities of a cultivating tenant under the Tenants Protection Act. Under the proviso to Section 7, the application may be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1133
1. The four appellants before us were tried along with others for an offence punishable under Sections 307 read with 34, 326 read with 34, 324 read with 34 IPC. The trial court convicted the four appellants. Their appeal was dismissed by the High Court. So far as appellant Harpal Singh is concerned, his case was tried differently because he was child and he was dealt with under the East Punjab Children Act. Therefore, it may be necessary to deal with his case separately. Then there remains the case of Ram Singh, Balkar Singh and Jagir Singh. All the three were convicted under Sections 307 read with 34, 326 read with 34, 324 read with 34 and were sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, 2 years and 2 years and 1 / 1/2 years respectively. The High Court relied upon the evidence of injured witness Principal witness being Bachan Singh who was examined as PW-1. Some injuries were found on the appellants also. Then the question is whether the prosecution has properly explained the injuries on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1033; [1992]75CompCas12(SC); 1991CriLJ1391; JT1992(1)SC405; 1992(1)SCALE216; (1992)2SCC343; [1992]1SCR406
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Special Leave granted in all the petitions.2. This litigation is an upshot of the earlier case Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. and Ors. : [1987]2SCR1 decided on January 22, 1987. In 1978 the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (in short 'the Banning Act, was enacted 'to ban the promotion or conduct of prize chits or money circulation schemes and for matters connected therewith or incidental 'hereto.' The question which arose in the above case was whether the Endowment Scheme piloted by the Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd, (hereinafter in short 'the Peerless') fell within the definition of 'Prize Chits' within' the meaning of Section 2(e) of the above Banning Act. By a letter dated July 23, 1979, the Reserve Bank of India pointed out to the Peerless that the schemes conducted by it were covered by the provisions of the Banning Act which had come into force w.e.f. December 12, 1...
Tag this Judgment!