LexFADDI versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1g64J
1964
of the provisions of the Act; and Art. 31 (2) deals
with
Jt4nt
RaJn.aprova compulsory acquisition or requisition which also is entirely
1!~v•
inapplicable to the present Act.
What the Act has pur-
S1a11 of Ori"a ported to do is to authorise the levy of assessment in res-
Goillldraiadkar J. p~ct of lands which till then had been exempted from the
said levy, and as Art. 31{5)(b)(i) provides nothing contain·
ed in clause (2) shall affect the provisions of any Jaw which
the State may make for the purpose of imposing or levying.
any tax or penalty. If the Orissa Legislature has imposed
a tax in the form of the assessment of the private lands of
Rulers, clearly it has not purported either to deprive
the
Rulers of their property, or to acquire or requisition
the
said property; it is a simple measure authorising the levy
of a tax in respect of agricultural lands and as &uch, it
i~
entireiy outside 'the purview of Art. 31.
It appears that
in Pratap Kessari Deo v. The State of Orissa & Ors., (
1
) the
validity of the Act was challenged before the Orissa High
Court, and the said High Court has repelled the challenge
and upheld the validity of the Act.
In our opinion, the
view taken by the Orissa High Court is right.
1964
January,
U
The result is. the petitions fail and are dismissed with
costs.
One set of hearing fees.
Petition dismissed.
FADDI
l'.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(M. HIDAYATULLAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.)
First lnformatinn Report by accused--Admi.~sibility in Evide11c~-lndia•
Evidenc~ Act. 1872 (1of1872) ss. '.!l, 25-Code of Cri1ninal Pro;t-
du'" 1898 (V of 1898), r. 162.
On the first information report lodged by th~ appellant, the corpse of
his step-son was recovered. The police arrested three oth .... ner<;ons indi-
cated to be the culprits, but as a result of the investigatio11. Lbe arpellant
(') A. I. R. 1961 Orissa, 13!.
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
313
1964
FaJdi
"'·
was &ent up for trial for the murder and sentenced to death. Th¢ High
Court confirmed the C" f!viction and sentence. On appeal by special leave
it was contended that the first information report was inadmissible in evi~
dence ~nd should not have been, therefore, taken on the re~ord.
State of Mtulh7'>·
Held: There v,·as no force in the contention. The report was neit'~\.r
confession of the accused nor a statement made to a police officer during
the ..:ourse of investigation. Section 25 of the Evidence Act and s. 162
of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not bar its admissibility. The report
was an admission by the accused of certain facrs which had a bearir.b on
the question to be determined by the Court viz., how and by whom the
murJcr was committeJ, or whether the accuser.l's statement in court denv·
ing the correctness of certain statements of the prosecution witnesses was
corr~ct or not. 1\dn1!ssions are admissib!e in cvitlence under s. 21 of the
Evidence Act and admission of an accused can be proved against him.
Dal S£ngli v. King Emperor, L. R. 44 I.A. 137, applied.
Ni.mr Ali v. Stai. of U.P. [1957] S.C.R. 657, considered and dis-
tingui~.hi:J.
State v. Balach.ind /\ l.R. 1960 Raj. Io'l. State of R,ajasthan v.
Shiv Singh A.LR. 1962 Raj. 3 and.Allohdia.v. State, 1959 All. LJ. 340.
referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURlSUICT!ON: Criminal Appeal
No. 210 of 1963.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated July 27, 1963, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
(Gwalior Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 1963 ;ind
Criminal Reference No. 4 of 1963.
K. K. Luthra, for the appellant.
I. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
January 24, 1964.
The Judgment of the Court
was
delivered by.
Pra<hlh
_RAGHUIJAR DAYAL. J.-'.addi app~als. by special leave, Raghubar Dayal I;
aga1mt the order of tne High Court of Madhya
Pradesh
confirming bis conviction i.lnd sentence of death
under s.
302 I.P .C. by the Additional Se1sions J uclge, Morena.
Jaibai, widow of Buddhu, began to Jive with Faddi 8
few years after the death of her husband Buddhu.
Faddi
and Jaibai 81 first lived 8! Agra, but later on shifted to
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1964
Morena.
Jaibai had a son named Guiab, by Buddhu.
Faddi
Guiab was aged 11 years and lived in village Torkheda at
•
1v.M dh
the house of his phupa Ramie. He was living there from
... tale o
a
ya
Pradesh
Sawan, 1961.
Raehubar Dayal J.
Gulab's corpse was recovered from a well of village
JaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.