Privy Council Cases
Colonial & appellate judgments
Browse Privy Council & House of Lords decisions
Search appeals from Indian High Courts decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and related appellate benches - foundational authority for constitutional and commercial law.
Colonial & appellate
Latest Privy Council judgments
Suka Vs. the King
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC72
LORD SIMONDS: This appeal is brought by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dismissing the appellant's appeal from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Bhandara, dated 30th January 1948, whereby the appellant was convicted of murder under S. 302, Penal Code and confirming the sentence of death passed upon him. 2. The grounds of appeal are stated to be ''(a) that there was no ground upon which the trial Court was entitled to find the appellant guilty of any offence, and (b) that both the learned trial Judge and the learned Judges of the High Court arrived at their findings by indulging in a series of surmises which were unsupported by evidence." and it was no doubt upon the footing that a review of the evidence adduced at the trial might justify these conclusions, that leave to appeal was given. 3. Their Lordships have therefore with the assistance of counsel scrutinised with particular care the whole of the evidence and the judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Vir Singh S/O Buta Singh Vs. the Crown
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1950P& H271; 1950CriLJ1335
ORDERBhandari, J.1. This is an application Under Section 491 Criminal P.C., for the release from custody of one Gajjan Singh, a resident of the Perozepore district.2. Gajjan Singh was arrested under the provisions of Section 3, Punjab Public Safety Act. 1947 on 5th April 1949, and on 23rd July his brother Vir Singh put in the present application under Section 491, Criminal P.C. The principal ground which has been taken in support of the application is that although several months have elapsed since the Punjab Public Safety Act. 1949 was enacted, the District Magistrate has not cared to comply with the provisions of Sub-sections (4) and (fi) of Section 3 of the said Act.3. These Sub-sections are in the following terms:(4) No person shall, unless the Provincial Government by special order otherwise directs, be detained in custody for a period exceeding one month. The Provincial Government shall as soon as may be and ordinarily not more than two months after the date when be has been take...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : N.P. Sethuram Naidu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1952CriLJ1004; (1951)IMLJ586
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner in this case is one Sethuram Naidu who was the first accused in C.C. No. 288 of 1947 on the file of the Joint Magistrate, Coonoor. The second accused in that case was one Madana Gopalan, the petitioner's younger brother. Both of them had been put up under Section 4(1)(a) and (i), read with Section 7, of the Prohibition Act, and were convicted by the Joint Magistrate of Coonoor. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for each of the offences, and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. He was also asked to pay a fine of Rs. 500 for each offence in addition to the sentence of imprisonment. His brother, the second accused, was fined Rs. 500 for each offence, as he was only aged 20 and a sentence of imprisonment was considered to be not called for.2. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, set aside the convictions and sentences of the second accused on both the counts, giving him th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.V. Kishta Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad389
ORDERPanchapakesa Aiyar, J.1. The petitioner here was already once convicted and fined for not paying the assessment fixed for 1946-47. I do not think that the lower Court was justified in law or in equity in convicting him over again for not having paid that very assessment in full. The learned Public Prosecutor cannot say why the principle of 'autrefois acquit' should not be applied here and the petitioner acquitted. This is not like a continuing trespass, a fresh offence every day. Though the old section (Section 15, Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1939) prescribed an added penalty of Rs. 50 a day, for continued breach, over the maximum fine of Rs. 1000 for a breach, even that section did not say that a new prosecution can be launched every day and that a fresh fine upto Rs. 1000 and a penalty of Rs. 50 per day for every day of non-payment after the due date can be imposed. The new section (as amended by Madras Act XXV [25] of 1947) does not contain that provision at all. So, I set ...
Tag this Judgment!Rev. A. Rampus and ors. Vs. Alumuri Subba Reddi and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad658
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by four persons namely the Rev. A. Rampus, K. John, Mahomed Baig and Nagi Reddi against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cuddappah, attaching, under Section 145, Criminal P. C., certain lands (with trees) regarding which there was an imminent danger of a breach of the peace. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the attack on the attachment of the lands themselves. The only prayer of the petitioners, he urges before me, is that, even before the preliminary order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, petitioners 3 and 4, Mahomed Baig and Nagi Reddi, had felled some trees standing on the lands, and severed them, and that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no power to attach these severed trees as per the ruling of Bardswell J. in Panga Thathalu Reddi v. Panga Pedda Paramma, 1934 M. W. N. Cr. 77 : 1934 M. W. N. 405. I have looked into that ruling and I do not consider that it will apply to the facts of this...
Tag this Judgment!C. Ramaswami and ors. Vs. Kunjammal and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad832
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a question relating to court-fee and jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovering possession of properties alienated by defendant 1 his mother and natural guardian. The suit is based on the allegations that defendant 1, who was an illiterate woman inexperienced in life was influenced by her brother to alienate the properties for very low consideration in his favour and in favour of some of his nominees and that the alienations were not therefore binding on him. The plaintiff valued the suit under Section 7(v), Court-fees Act, at Rs. 2689-6-0 and gave the same valuation for purposes of jurisdiction also and paid court-fee thereon. The defendants contended in the lower Court that the plaintiff should have asked for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by his mother as guardian and paid court-fee under Section 7(iv)(a). The trial Court took this matter up as a preliminary question and decided that the plaint should be c...
Tag this Judgment!Gouri Sankar Singha Roy and ors. Vs. Prafulla Behari Singha Roy and or ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal210,54CWN651
Gopendra Nath Das, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendants 3 to 10. The plaintiff's case is that defendants 1 and 3 were adjudicated insolvents in Insolvency Case No. 66 of 1936 on. 16 2-1939, that defendants 1 to 10 were members of a joint Mitakshara Hindu family, defendants 3 to 6 being the sons of defendant 1 and defendants 7 to 10 being the sons of defendant 2, that the disputed property was the ancestral homestead of the defendants, that the Province of Bengal which was entitled to certain dues on account of settlement operations from the defendants was creditor 6 in the application for insolvency, that on their application the disputed property was brought to sale and purchased by the plaintiff on 22-8-1941 and the learned District Judge as a Receiver in Insolvency executed a conveyance in favour of the plaintiff on 24-1-1942. The plaintiff having failed to get possession instituted the present suit for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession.2. To this suit s...
Tag this Judgment!Sailendra Nath Sen, Auction-purchaser Vs. Sudhanya Charan Das Naiya an ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal166
ORDERR.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of the auction, purchaser against an order passed by the lower appellate Court setting aside a sale. The sale in question was held on 5th May 1941, and a jama of Rs. 74-8-16 gandas covering an area of about 79 bighas was sold for Rs. 203-9-0. About a quarter of this area was khas land and the remaining portion was tenanted. The sale was confirmed on 7th June 1941 and the auction purchaser thereafter obtained possession through Court. About four years later, on 24th July 1945, an application purporting to be under Sections 173 and 174 (3), Bengal Tenancy Act was filed by the judgment-debtors. It was alleged that the auction-purchaser was the benamdar of some of the judgment-debtors and this was made the foundation of the application under Section 173. Various allegations about suppression of service of notices and other irregularities and of fraud were made in support of the prayer made under Section 174 (3), Bengal ...
Tag this Judgment!Tetri Vs. Ram Newaj
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal168
ORDERSen, J.1. The petitioner has obtained this Rule and it relates to certain proceedings under Section 488, Criminal P. C.2. The material facts which need be stated briefly are as follows: The petitioner applied for an order of maintenance under Section 488, Criminal P. C. against her husband. The order granting maintenance was made on 23rd June 1947. There were certain proceedings thereafter which need not be considered. On 3rd November 1947, the husband made an application under Section 488, Sub-section (5), Criminal P. C., for cancellation of the order for maintenance on the ground that his wife was living in adultery. When that application came to be heard a compromise petition was put in on 2nd December 1948 which is in the following terms:'The humble petition of the parties in this case, most respectfully sheweth: That the above matter has been compromised between the parties and the husband and wife have agreed to live together and none of the parties desires to proceed with a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupati Ghosh Vs. the King
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal327,54CWN221
Chunder, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 395, Penal Code. Briefly, the facts are that there was a dacoity in the house of the complainant Jiten. There were three other inmates in the house, of them P. W. 2 is said to have fainted and P. W. NOS. 3 and 4 were two ladies. P.W. Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are three neighbours who came the next morning some hours later.2. As the learned Magistrate's order sheet seems to show, he considered that the public prosecutor had good reason to think that P. Ws. Nos. 6, 7 and 8 will not be witnesses of truth, but as the defence wanted them to be tendered for cross-examination, he directed that they should be so tendered, purporting to follow a decision of this Court, and at the same time when calling upon the public prosecutor to do so he gave him an opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses later.3. Mr. Mukherjee, appearing for the defence, has rightly pointed out that the learned Magistrate could hav...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6791
- 6792
- 6793
- 6794
- 6795
- 6797
- 6798
- 6799
- 6800
- 6801
- Next ›
- Last »