Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)BLJR768; 1994(2)Crimes114(SC); JT1994(3)SC232; 1994(2)SCALE569; (1994)4SCC182; [1994]3SCR497
B.L. Hansaria, J.1. This appeal on certificate would require our decision, inter alia, on the question of evidentiary value of dying declaration made be gestures. This question arises, because from what is being stated later, it would be clear that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is principally based on dying declaration of deceased, Meesala Ramanamma @ M Venkata Ramanamma, who was none else than the wife of the appellant. As the deceased was not in a position to speak at the relevant time her dying declaration came to be recorded by a Magistrate on the basis of some nods and gestures made by her. It is this dying declaration which has led in the main to find the appellant guilty of murder of his wife which has resulted in his being sentenced to R.I. for life - the minimum punishment provided by law.2. The appellant alone had faced the trial relating to murder of his wife. The Sessions Judge, Vishakapatnam, found the appellant guilty under Section 302 and sentence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)Crimes92(SC); (1994)2GLR1392; JT1994(3)SC250; 1994(2)SCALE534; (1994)4SCC353; [1994]3SCR471
A.S. Anand, J. 1. Twelve persons namely, Bharatsinh Patubha Gohil, Dhruvansinh Bharatsinh Gohil. Antruddsinh Bharatsinh Gohil, Jodha Khoda Rabari, Bhikhubha Shivubha Gohil, Bhupatsinh Bahadursinh Gohil, Kuvarsinh Ajitsinh Gohil, Nirubha, Ajitsinh, Baldevsinh Alias Bablubha Sajubha Gohil, Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil and Mohansinh Alias Nathabhai Ranchhodbhai Thaker Alias Selanki Alias Parma were tried for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 302, 307, 148 IPC read with Section 149, Section 143 and in the alternative under Section 302, 307/34 IPC and Section 25A of the Arms Act by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, (For the sake of convenience and brevity we shall refer to the No. of the accused. Al to A12, in the same order in which their names appear in the Trial Court).2. The Trial Court found that all the accused, as members of an unlawful assembly, under the leadership of accused No. 11 responsible for the death of deceased Diwaliben. It also held all the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(3)SCC101
K. Jayachandra Reddy and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This matter arises under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The article of food involved is ‘supari’ mixed with saccharin. The sample was taken in the month of March 1978. As the law stood then, such a sweetener was not permitted and any such treatment of supari with saccharin amounted to adulteration and hence it was punishable. However, on 9-11-1993, a notification was issued bearing No. GSR 695(E) by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare including saccharin as an item permitted to the maximum limit of 4000 ppm for flavouring supari in Rule 47 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. As at present the use of saccharin in permissible limit is recognised and in view of the facts and particularly of the fact that the sample was taken nearly 16 years ago, without going into the question raised, we are not inclined to interfere at this stage. The appeals are, therefore, d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC70
S. Mohan and; M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.1. The impugned order which came to be quashed by the Tribunal reads as under:“The counsel for the petitioner argued that the disciplinary authority in this case, has also not given any indication of his decision to hold a fresh inquiry on the same charges, on consideration of the case and, therefore, the conditions required by the rule had not been fulfilled. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the only recital about the fresh enquiry contained in the 1st sentence of the said order which translated into English reads that in the light of the judgment of the Tribunal, the orders about conducting a fresh departmental enquiry against Shri Singh are being issued separately. We agree with the contention on behalf of the petitioner that this recital could not be taken as a sufficient and unambiguous fulfilment of the condition required by the CCA rule that the appointing authority has to decide to hold a further enquiry after consideration of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1994]81CompCas371(SC); (1994)2CompLJ43(SC); JT1994(3)SC623; 1994(2)SCALE530; (1994)3SCC504; [1994]3SCR463; 1994(2)LC176(SC)
N.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed, against an order passed by the 'National Commission', established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, setting aside the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum, and dismissing the petition of complaint filed on behalf of the appellant against the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent').2. The appellant booked a tractor with the respondent and deposited an amount of Rs. 2,500/- as an advance on 12.12.1990. The price of the tractor was quoted at Rs. 1,86,975/-. The appellant was first to receive the tractor from the said respondent according to the list of booking. On an application made on behalf of the appellant, Allahabad Bank, Shahpur, sanctioned loan to the appellant, which decision was communicated by a letter dated 5.2.1991.3. Although in the list of the persons to whom the tractors were to be supplied, the position of the appellant was against Serial No. 1, the said respondent, according...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(3)SC248; 1994(2)SCALE516; 1994Supp(2)SCC342
ORDER1. These review petitions are filed by M/s. Starke and Company Private Limited which holds certain mining leases in the area covered by our order dated April 8, 1993. At the insistent request of Sri M.C. Bhandare, we directed these review petitions to be posted for hearing in court. Accordingly, we have heard Sri Bhandare at some length.2. The main contention of the review-petitioner is that the mines in respect of which it holds leases are not within the protected forest area notified in the Notification dated 1.1.1975 issued by the Government of Rajasthan under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act. It is submitted that the Jain Committee Report is wrong insofar as it holds that the review-petitioner's mines fall within the protected forest area.3. In our opinion, there are a number of reasons why these review petitions cannot be allowed:(1) Before determining the protected forest area, Justice Jain Committee heard all the concerned parties. It is admitted fact that the review-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2301; JT1994(3)SC203; (1994)108PLR206; 1994(2)SCALE557; (1994)3SCC544; 1994(1)LC678(SC)
ORDER1. In all these appeals the question that arises for consideration is whether the tenants also are entitled to be heard by the concerned authority while deciding a dispute of title between the persons claiming to be the owners and the Gram Panchayat in respect of Shamlat Deh under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 ('Act', for short)? According to the averments, the appellants claim to have been cultivating the land as lessees which, land has been described in the revenue records as Shamlat Deh owned by the Gram Panchayat. Thus they claim to be tenants of the Gram Panchayat in respect of the land in dispute. Before the High Curt they challenged the order of Director of Consolidation of Holdings ('Director' for short) passed under Section 42 of the Act. The said order was passed by the Director in a petition filed by persons claiming to have shares in the Shamlat Deh which shares were entered in the cultivation column as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)96BOMLR963; JT1994(3)SC267; 1994(2)SCALE541; (1994)3SCC481; [1994]3SCR451; 1994(2)LC273(SC)
M.K. Mukherjee, J.1. The principal question that arises for consideration in these two appeals, preferred against the judgments of the High Court of Bombay, is whether tenancy rights under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') can be devised by a will. Ancillary thereto arises the question whether the words 'assign' and 'transfer' in Section 15 of the Act include 'bequest'. Facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the appeals are as under:CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2584/1980:One Tara Bai, who was the tenant of the disputed premises, died issueless. She left behind a will bequeathing her properties, including tenancy right in the said premises, to her sister's son Gopal and appointing the plaintiff-appellant, her brother's son, as executor thereof. The defendant-respondent, who happens to be the grandson of a sister of the legatee, and his wife were staying with Tara Bai in the disputed premises. After her death, the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC137
P.B. Sawant and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant herein is admittedly a divorcee from the respondent. However, before divorce, she filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 read with Section 126 of the Criminal Procedure Code (the Code) in the Court of the learned Magistrate, Nuh. In that application, she has stated that she resides at Nuh with her brother. She has also given her address of Nuh. However, the respondent-ex-husband challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Magistrate on the ground that she was not residing at Nuh and that she was residing all along in New Delhi and, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate accepting the said plea dismissed the application. Against the said decision, the appellant approached the learned Sessions Judge in revision who allowed the application and restored the maintenance application. However, against the said decision, the respondent preferred proceedings before the High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(3)SC181; 1994(1)KLT887(SC); 1994(2)SCALE522; 1994Supp(2)SCC619; [1994]3SCR437; 1995(1)LC756(SC)
Madan Mohan Punchhi, J.1. Two principles of Election law stand, as always, in competition; one being 'purity of elections' and the other being 'secrecy of ballot'. On the basis of the former, the Kerala High Court has upset the election of the appellant herein. Challenge to the order of the High Court is on the anvil of the latter principle.2. The appellant and the first respondent were contesting candidates for the Kovalam Assembly seat No. 138 in the State of Kerala. The appellant was a Janata Dal supported candidate, and the first respondent was the sponsored candidate of the Indian National Congress (I). Candidates of other political parties though being in the fray get no significance in so far as the present matter is concerned. Polling took place on 12-6-1991. Counting took place on 16-6-1991. The Assistant Returning Officer who supervised the counting announced the number of votes polled by the appellant as 49516 and the first respondent as 49500. There was a demand of re-count...
Tag this Judgment!