LexM. RAMAPPA versus SANGAPPA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. '
~
L
·-
'
t
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS .
ll67
Court which tries him cquld 'award for any one of
x95B
such off(lnces.'. The maximum sentence which could
Puranmall
have been µnpqsed upon ~the appellant for a1;1y one of
Agarwal/a
the offences of.which he had been convicted was one
v.
year's•iniprisonmenp. ln 'other words, even if separate The State of Orissa
-sentences were passed under.a .. 9, sub-ss. (a) an\l (b),
-
the sum total of these sentences should not exceed one
1'" 0"' J.
year's imprisonment. In the present 0;:1se, t.he sentence
imposed upon.the appellant has been in all 6 months,
3 months' imprisonment under each c0unt. It wol.lld
appear; therefore, that the sentence passed upon the
appellant did not
c6ntrav~ne the provisions of /l. 71
of thf) Indiaµ Penal Code. In our opinio'n, the appel-
lant .was rightly.convicted under s. 9.(a) and (b) of the
Opium Act, and· there has Been no illegality in the
sentence' imposed upon him.·
It \Vas ~trsmgly urged on behalf of the appella;nt
that there might be a redhction .in the. sentence.
Instead of a sentence of imprisonment being imposed,
the- appellant may be sentenced to a substantial fine.
In our qpinion, offences against the Opium Act are
serious ones, and we cannot accede to the re'quest
ma.de. 4 sentence of 6 months' imprisonment cannot
be considered as unduly severe.
The ai;>pe,al is accordingly dismissed.
,1
I
•
I
•'
..
-
M. RAMAPPA
v.
S.ANGAPPA AND OTHERS
(VENKATARAMA AIYAR, GAJENDRAGADKAR and
A. K. SARKAR JJ.) '
..
lion Dispute-Disqualification for being chosen as me.,;ber
bf.
ate Assembly-Hereditary.village office-Whether office of pro-
under the Government-Mysore Villaf..e Offices Act, 1~08 (Mysore
4 of 199~), ss. q, 7, 8-Rep~esei:tatjon of (he People Act, 195~
(43 of 1951): s. 106(1)(c)-Constitufion of Jndia, Art. 191,
•
Tlie ~omination papers o{ three candisJates Jar election as
members of the State l\.Ssembly were rejected by the Returning
•
•
August ar.
•
z958
Rapiappa
v.
Sangapp~
J
1168
SUPREME COURT :REPORTS
[1959]
Officer on-thq ground that \he first two of them were P.atels aud
the third, ·a Shanbhog, of their villages and as such they
were hblders of offices of profit under the Government and
consequently
disqualified from membership of the State
Assembly under "Al't. 191 of
th~ Constitution of India. The
validity of the election was challenged by some of the 'electors
of the constituency by an election petition under s. lOO(r)(c) of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951,.on the ~round that
the nomination papers of the three candidates were wrongly
rejected. It was contended for the petitioners that the candi-
dates in ').Uestion were not holders of offices of profit under- the
Government. because (I) they were holding their offices by here-
ditary right and not 'Under the Governmen~, and (2) th.ere was
no direct payment of their dues by the Government. It was not
disputed that village offices are governed by the Mysore Village
Offices Act, 1908, and 'it was found that Pa tels and Shanbhogs
were holding their offices by reason of the appointment by the
Government, though in certain cases the statute gave the heir of
the last holder a right to be appointed if the s\at11tory require-
men.ts were fulfilled, that they worked µnder the control and
supervision of the Government and were removable by it, and
that their remuneration was paid by it out of its funds and
assets :
Held, that th_e holder of a village office though he may nave
a hereditary right, cloes not get the office till he is appointed by
the Government under whom the office is held_.
Accordingly,
Patels anJi Shanbhogs a.re hblder~ of offices of profit under ~he
Government and their nomination papers '>'(ere rightly rejected
by the Retm;ning Officer.
'
CIVIL APPELLATE J URISDIOTION : Civil Appeal No.
251of1958.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February
26, 1958, of the Mysore High Court in Misc. Appeal
No. 142 of 1957.
-
R. Patnaik, for the appellant.
S. J(. Venkatranga Iyengar and N. Keshava Iyengar,
for the respondents.
•
1958.
August 21.
The .Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
Sarkar J.
SARKAR J.-The question for decision in this ap
•
is w hethei: certain persons were holders· of offices
profit 3lnder the G(\'.vernment and were.
~~erefore
• disqualified under Art. 191 of the Const1tut10n, for
,,.
being chosen as'member.s, o:( a legislative assembExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.