LexSULEMAN ISSA versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1953
Ka{ranpur_ Lime
Works Lid.
v.
Statt of Bihar
and Another.
Chui.am Hasan J.
1954
March 11,
976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
not
the
case.
We think, however,
that though
we decline
to
give a decree for specific performance
of the contract for the short
period, there is no reason
why the Lime Co. should be deprived of compensation.
The plaintiff had prayed for a decree for compensation
in the plaint and the trial court had decreed compen-
sation for the period commencing from 1st April, 1948,
till the date of getting possession of the leasehold pro-
perty and the amount of compensation was
left to be
ascertained in subsequent proceedings.
As no question
of possession arises in the view that we have taken in
the case. it follows that the plaintiff is entitled to com-
pensation from the 1st April, 1948, tili the 31st March;
1954.
We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judg-
ment and decree of the High Court and direct that the
plaintiff shall be allowed
a decree for compensation
from the 1st April, 1948, to the 31st March, 1954, the
amount of compensation to be ascertained
by the trial
court.
After determining tl1e amount, the trial court
will pass an appropriate decree.
We make no order
as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
Agent for the appellant : S. p. Varma.
Agent for respondent No. 1 : R. C. Prasad.
Agent for respondent No. 2: B. P. Maheswari.
SULEMAN ISSA
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY.
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs,
VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.]
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), s. 517-Person pro-
secuted undff s. 61-E of the Bombay District Police Act (Bombay
Act TV of 1890)-Confiscation of gold worth about 3 lakhs-
Propriety of.
Under s. 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the court is
empowered on the conclusion of an enquiry or trial to make an
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
977
order for the disposal of any property or document produced before
it or in its custody or regarding which an offence appears to have
been committed or which had been used for the commission of any
offf'nce. The power of the court extends to the confiscation of the
property in the custody of the court but it is not in every case in
which the court must necessarily pass an order of confiscation
irrespective of the ci.rcun1stances of the case.
Held, that the confiscation of gold worth about 3 lakhs of
rupees was singularly inappropriate in a case like the present where
the prosecution story that the gold in question was smuggled
into
India from Africa was not accepted by the court and the accused
was convicted for an offence under s.
6l~E of the Bombay District
Police Act, 1890, which provides a maximum sentence of three
months and a fine of Rs. 100 and which does not contain any
substantial provision such as the Sea Customs Act imposing the
penalty of confiscation.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JuR1smcnoN :
Criminal
Appeal No. 67 of 1951.
Appeal
by special leave from the Judgment and
Order, dated 26th June, 1950, of the High Court of
Judicature at
Bombay (Dixit and
Chainani JJ.) in
Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 1949.
N. C. Chatterjee (H. /. Umrigar and S. P. Varma,
with him) for the appellant.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (Porus
A. Mehta, with him) for the respondent.
1954. March 11.
The Judgment of the Court was
<lelivered by
GHULAM
HASAN J.-This. appeal is brought by
special leave from the judgment and order of the High
Court ·Of Judicature at Bombay (Dixit and Chainani
JI.), dated June
26,
1950, whereby the High Court
allowed the appeal
of the State of Bombay, setting
aside the order of acquittal of the appellant passed by
the S~ssions
Judge of Kaira, dated
May 7, 1949, and
restormg the order of conviction and sentence of the
appellant passed
by
the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Nadiad Prant, dated December 31, 1948.
Tht; appellant, Suleman Issa, who is an inhabitant of
Natal m S~uth Africa
!~ft Durban in August, 1947, by
~ar fo.r ~nd1a t? pay a visit to his native place
Sarsa
Ill D1stnct . Ka1ra where his sister was living with her
husband Ahmahmad Issak.
He was· accompanied by
1954
Suleman.1ssa
v.
·The State of
.Bombay.
1954
Suleman Issa
v.
The State of
Bombay.
Ghulam Hasan J.
978
SUJ:'REME COURT REPORTS
[1954)
Daud Hassam another brother-in-law and both travelled
to Mombasa
by
car.
From Mombasa they
took a
boat on August 30, and reached Colombo on Septem-
ber 1 L
They fleExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.