LexBIRAJMOHAN DAS GUPTA versus THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, 1) S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 68L regain his self-control, even if he had not regained it earlier. On tho other hand, his conduct clearly shows that the murder was a. deliberate and calculated one. Even if any oonvers'.ltion took place between the accused and the deceased in the manner described by the accused- though we do not believe that-it does. not a:tfect the question, for the accused entered the bed-room of the deceased to shoot him. The mere fact that before the shooting the accused abused the deceas- ed and the abuse provoked an equally abusive reply could not conceivably be a provocation for the murder. We, therefore, hold that the facts of the case do not attract the provisions of Exception I to s. 300 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, conviction of the accused under s. 302 of the Indian Pena.I Code and senten,JC of imprisonment for life passed on him by the High Court are correct, and there are absolutely no grounds for interference. The appeal stands dis- missed. Appeal dismissed. -- BIRAJMOHAN DAS GUPTA v. THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS (P. B. GAJENDBAGADKAR, A. K. SARX.lR, K. N. WANOJIOO, K. C. DAS Gu.PTA and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) Boad Tranal!".rl-Slale TraMpOrt Urnlertaking-Schemo- Ap~ro...Z by _Min,.ler-Biaa o/ M~ni81er-Validity of schem<- Jliottce for adiourned dale of heanng-1/ necesaary-.()miasion u/ date of operation of route in final acheme- Tranaport Oontrol- lu-Authority to pubU.h acheme-Ori&a Bu!u frame;J und<r Oh. IV A of Motor Vehit:les-Act, .,,, ~ (.,;), 8-Molor Velliclu Act, 19&9 (4 of 1939), as. 680, 68D (9). The validity of a schemlt' oi road .. Vanlport service appro. ved by the Government af 01U... IW!cr a·. 68D (2) of the J91Jl K. -M. Nanavali v. ., he se'Jte of /11ah6rashtra Subba BJo J. 1961 · elllfflbcr 21 ill(,J 11Uajrnolt'11 Dtu Gafl'• •• 1·'4 Stdt •} O,;u• 682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. Motor Vehicles Aa, 1939, was challe11g•d by the p<titioners on the grounds (I) that a proper notice \Vas no: given for the h•aring of ocjcctions to the scheme, (2) that the Minister for Tran>pott who approved of the scheme was biased, (3) that the final schen:e did not mt'ntion the date on \\'hich it v.·as to conic into operation, and (4) that the Tran.port Controller who pub- lished the scheme had no authority to do oo. Held, that; (1) r. 8 of the Rul•S framed by the 0ri5'a State Government und<r Ch. IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. applied only to the first date to be fixed for healing, and that if for any reason the hearing was adjourned, it Wa!\ not necessary to give a fresh notice under the rule for the adjourn- ed date of hearing; (2) the stattment made by the minister in answer to a question put i11 the legislative as~entbly that the Gr,vernment had <le<ided to take over all the routes from April I, 1961. eliminating all private operator~, was merely an indication of the Government's policy and that the minister could not be said to be personally biased; (3) the approved scheme was not invalid for the reason that the actual date of operating the route wa1 not mentioned in the final scheme, as required under r. 3 (vi) of the Rules, inasmuch as the notification publishing the final .cheme re- ferred to the draft scheme which contained that date and "'id that the draft scheme was approved, and, con.cquently, the rule must be considered to have been substantially com. plied with; and (4) the Transport Controller, being the Chief Officer of the Staie Transport Undertaking, had the authority to pul>lish the scheme under s. 68C of the Act sinc:e the section provided that the Staie Transport Undertaking "•hall cause it to be published" which meant that oome officer of lhe Undertaking would have it published in the Gazette. 0RIGI~AL JURISDICTION : Petitions Nos. 117 and 137 of 1961. Petition under Art 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental RighU;. L. K. Jha and R. Patnai/c, for the petitioner (in Petn. No 117 of 1961). C. B, .Agarwala and R. Patnailc, for the peti· tioner (in Petn. No. 137 of 1961) . .A. V. Vi.ttoanatha Swtri, B. R. L. Iyengar and T . .M. Sen, for the respondent.. I I (l) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS · 683 1961. November 28. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANOHOO, J.-These two petitions challenge the validity of a scheme of road transport service approved by the Government of U;·issa under s. 68D (2) of the Motor Ve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.