Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT(Cri)1; 1993CriLJ2606; 1993(1)Crimes1140(SC); 1993(2)SCALE358; (1993)3SCC226; [1993]2SCR707
A.S. ANAND, J.1. The appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter the Act) by the Additional Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Trivandrum on 17.7.1981 and sentenced to suffer one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for three months. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum who dismissed his appeal on 28.10.1981. Criminal Revision Petition No. 459 of 1981 filed in the High Court of Kerala also failed on 8th August, 1984. It is, thereafter, that he has come up to this Court by appeal on special leave being granted.2. On 12.2.1980, the Food Inspector of the Corporation of Trivandrum after disclosing his identity purchased from the appellant 600 gms. of 'ice-stick' and paid Rs. 1.25. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst at Trivandrum, who vide report dated 6.3.1980 opined that the 'said samp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1899; 1993CriLJ2246; 1993(1)Crimes1136(SC); JT1993(3)SC633; 1993(2)SCALE354; 1993Supp(3)SCC134
A.S. Anand, J.1. For an occurrence which took place on the night intervening the 31st May and 1st June, 1982, at about 1.00 a.m, in which one Iragana Gurava Reddy was murdered, six persons, namely, Dagumati Vankata Subha Reddy (Al); Chinta Pulla Reddy (A2); Balamreddi Pulla Reddy (A3); Gaddam Pulla Reddi (A4); Gaddam Panchala Reddy (A5) and Bade Rami Reddi (A6) were challaned and ultimately sent up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore. The first charge against the accused was under Section 148 IPC. They were all convicted of the said charge and each of the accused was sentenced to two years' R.I. The second charge against A1 was for an offence under Section 302 IPC. He was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The third charge was for an offence under Section 302/149 IPC against remaining accused persons. The conviction was recorded for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC against A2 to A6 and each one of them was sentenced to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(43)ECC142; 1993(2)KLT212(SC); 1993Supp(3)SCC531; [1993]90STC174(SC)
ORDER1. The question for consideration before the High Court was whether goat/sheep and the meat got after slaughtering the animal are the same category of goods for the purposes of sales tax under the Kerala Genera! Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the Act'). The contention of the Sales Tax Department of Kerala Government before the High Court was that they are two different goods. The High Court, following its earlier judgment in Ismail v. State of Kerala, held that both goat/sheep and the meat were the same goods for the purposes of sales tax under the Act. The question was decided against the department. These appeals are by way of certificate granted by the Kerala High Court. 2. The High Court judgment in A.B. Ismail's case has been reversed by this Court by its judgment in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ismail. Following the judgment of this Court referred to above and the reasoning therein we allow these appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and grant relief to the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC235
P.B. Sawant and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Heard parties. There is no doubt that the employee was suspended from the year 1984 and the charge-sheet was served on him in the year 1988. The enquiry is not yet complete. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in ordering reinstatement of the employee. However, the Tribunal travelled beyond its jurisdiction in quashing the charges and the disciplinary proceedings themselves. We are informed that in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal the respondent-employee has been reinstated in service.3. We, therefore, quash that part of the order of the Tribunal by which the Tribunal had quashed the charges and the disciplinary proceedings, and permit the appellant-Union of India, if it so intends, to proceed with the enquiry. However, the appellant is directed to complete the enquiry within 6 months from today. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. 1. Leave granted.2. Heard parties. There is no doubt that the employe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1994(68)FLR1228]; JT1993(2)SC547; (1994)IILLJ527SC; 1993(2)SCALE362; 1993Supp(4)SCC686; 1994(1)SLJ38(SC); (1994)2UPLBEC982
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. It is the State Government's unjustifiable action of keeping the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Class II Posts (Gazetted) in the School and Inspection Cadre, in the Department of Education, 1980 ['1980 Rules'], in cold storage, and with no regards to them, entering into ad hoc agreements with its employees from time to time which has been responsible for complicating the present dispute and bringing to this stage. The dispute is between the Headmasters and the School Lecturers with regard to the promotional posts.It is precisely to regulate the claims of the two categories to the promotional posts, that 1980 Rules were framed. Had these rules been faithfully followed, there would have been no occasion for the various litigations between the two categories with one or the other party approaching the Court whenever the State Government in disregard of the Rules, tried to evolve different sets of arrangements which were favourable to one or the other side as t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(2)SC550; (1993)IILLJ958SC; (1993)2MLJ110(SC); 1993(2)SCALE330; 1993Supp(3)SCC483; 1994(1)SLJ28(SC); (1993)3UPLBEC1569
ORDER1. Leave granted.C.A. NO. of 1993 [@ SLP No. 3171/1993.]2. The appeal is directed against the interlocutory order dated 21.5.1992 passed by the High Court. Normally, this Court does not interfere with the interlocutory orders. But the case in hand impels us to do so.3. The respondent was employed at the relevant time as Cashier of the Agricultural Market Committee [the 'Market Committee'] at Rampur. The allegation against the respondent is that during his tenure as such Cashier, lakhs of rupees credited in the accounts of the Market Committee were not deposited in its bank account. On leasing of the said misfeasance, the appellant - Market Committee suspended him from service with effect from 22nd March, 1991. He challenged his suspension in the High Court on the ground that some other suspended officers had been allowed to join service. The High Court quashed the suspension order on the said ground.4. The investigation into the defalcation was, however, in progress. In April, 199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(2)BLJR881; [1993]77CompCas356(SC); 1993CriLJ2888; 1993(1)Crimes1132(SC); JT1993(2)SC523; 1993(2)SCALE266; (1993)3SCC54; [1993]2SCR699; [1993]Supp54SCR3
N.P. Singh, J.1. The appellants on the relevant date, were managing director and directors of a Public Limited Company registered as M/s. Bihar Cable and Wire Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). A case was instituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'the CBI') against the appellants and others on basis of a complaint made by the then Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development and Company Affairs, Government of India. It was alleged that after the registration of the company aforesaid as a Public Limited Company, the appellants as managing director and directors issued prospectus inviting public subscriptions of 42,000 equity shares and 3,000 preference shares. It was given out by the appellants to the investors that application was being made to the Calcutta Stock Exchange for enlisting the shares of the company for official quotation. Such application which was made on behalf of the company was rejected by the stoc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)2SCC752
A.M. Ahmadi and; S. Mohan, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. The father of the respondent having passed away the respondent sought appointment in the Rajasthan Police Service as Sub-Inspector on compassionate ground. The authorities could not accede to his request as he had crossed the prescribed age limit (including relaxation) for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The authorities, therefore, offered him the post of Lower Division Clerk for which upper age limit is 31. The respondent instead of accepting the same moved the High Court by way of a writ petition. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed that he be given appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police ignoring the age limit prescribed under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989. The special appeal to the Division Bench was dismissed and hence this appeal.3. We have heard counsel on both sides. It is one thing to say that a family member of the deceased is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC598; JT1993(2)SC456; 1993(2)SCALE277; 1993Supp(3)SCC657; (1993)2UPLBEC1235
ORDER1. Heard the counsel for the parties. Leave granted.2. A common question arises in these two appeals. It is sufficient to refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 1425 of 1993 (arising from SLP (C) No. 13928 of 1992). The respondent appeared for the Higher Secondary Examination held by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa, in the year 1992. Results were published on 24-6-92. The respondent was declared to have failed. He then filed the Writ Petition in the Orissa High Court for declaring him successful in Second Division in the said examination. The Writ Petition has been allowed by a Division Bench with a direction to the Council of Higher Secondary Education 'to apply the Hard Case Rule to the petitioner and publish his result within one month hence.'3. The respondent obtained 56 marks in English subject, which is four short of the requisite pass marks. Biology was his extra optional subject. The center where he appeared was found indulging in certain malpractices in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1888; (1993)111CTR(SC)171; [1993]201ITR538(SC); JT1993(3)SC579; 1993(2)SCALE233; 1993Supp(2)SCC520; [1993]2SCR645
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 44/68. The question referred under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1948 for the opinion of the High Court reads thus:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax assessments for the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 and excess profits tax assessments for the chargeable accounting period ending 4-11-1945 and 31-3-1946 made on M/s. Nagarrhal Baijnath, a firm which was dissolved and whose business was discontinued at the time of the assessments were validly made?2. The appellant-assessee, M/s. Nagarmal Baijnath was a firm which did business during the accounting years relevant to assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48, the previous years being the years ending November 4, 1945 and March 31, 1946 respectively. By a deed of dissolution dated December 2, 1946, the firm was dissolve...
Tag this Judgment!