HUKUM SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 28-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. ' 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
601 
the imposition of the octroi duty which in the context 
'must mean imposition of the tax because the very 
first rule states:-
. Rule 1 "Octroi shall ordinarily be levied on com-
modities included in the following classes and speci-
fied in the schedule hereto annexed and at the rates 
therein entered". 
The various classes of articles and commodities on 
which octroi was to be levied are then set out and then 
the exceptions and explanations are given. With 
these rules are the schedules specifying the goods 
under each class which are liable to octroi duty and 
the rate at which the octroi duty was chargeable. 
This notification therefore clearly is one which directs 
imposition of octroi and falls within sub-s. (7) of s. 67 
and having been notified in the Gazette it is conclu-
sive evidence of the tax having been imposed in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act and it 
cannot be challenged on the ground that all the neces-
sary steps had not been taken. 
In our opinion this appeal is without force and is 
therefore dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
HUKUM SINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
(K. SUBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
Criminal Trial-Criminal Trespass-Right of private defence 
of property-Degree of-Trespasser, if must abide by the directions 
of the aggrieved party-Common object-Conclusion of-Indian 
Penal Code (Act 45 of I86o), s. r49. 
The appellants one of whom was armed with hatchet and 
others with lathis, on being prevented by one 'H' and his suppor-
ters through whose field they were committing cri1ninal trespass 
with the common object to reach a public passage with two load-
,__ ed carts, are alleged to have attacked 'H' and his supporters, as 
76 
r96r 
Berar Swadeshi 
Vanaspathi 
v. 
Municipal Com-
mittee, Shegaon 
Kapur ]. 
March aB. 
Hukum Singh 
v. 
The State of 
Uttar Pradesh 
Raghubar 
Dayal]. 
602 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
a result of which 'H' died. The defence was that on 'H's pro-
test the appellants asked to be excused and pleaded to be allow-
ed to cross the remaining small portion of the field to reach the 
public passage, whereupon they were attacked and in self defen-
ce they attacked back. 
The appellants' case was that H's right 
of private defence of the property had ceased for the reasons 
that the criminal trespass was over on the appellants having 
indicated their intention to do so, and they were no more an un-
lawful assembly as their common object had ceased and there-
after all were not responsible for acts of another. 
Held, that when a criminal trespass had been committed it 
did not come to an end on the trespasser's expressing regret and 
then pleading to be allowed to proceed further with a view to 
end such a trespass. The aggrieved party had the right to pre-
vent the trespasser from continuing to commit such further 
criminal trespass, and his directions had to be abided by by the 
trespasser, whatever be the degree of patience required; the 
trespasser had no right to insist on proceeding further even if 
not allowed to move in any direction in order to leave the 
field. 
Held, further, that when several persons were with lathis 
and one of them was armed with hatchet and were agreed to 
use these weapons in case they were thwarted in the achievement 
of their object, it would be concluded that they were prepared 
to use violence in prosecution of their common object and that 
they knew that in the prosecution of such common object it 
was likely that some one might be so injured as to die as a 
result of those injuries. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 165 of 1960. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated December 19, 1958, of the Allahabad 
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1010 of 1956. 
Jai Gopal Sethi, 0. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, for 
the appellants. 
G. 0. ~Mathur and 0. P. Lal, for the respondent. 
1961. March 28. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, by special 
leave, is by four persons against the order of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing their 
appeal and confirming their conviction for several 
offences including one under s. 302 read with s. 149, ... 
I.P.C., by the Sessions Judge, Sa.haranpur. 
' ' 
• 
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
603 
These appellants, along with three other persons, 
were alleged to have forcibly taken two carts loaded 
with sugarcane from the f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.