We do not think that there was any such legal bar as is suggested by learned counsel, though there may be cases where on the facts proved it will be impossible to reach a finding that the convicted persons, less than five in number, constituted an unlawful assembly with certain other unspecified persons not mentioned in the charge. Arguments were addressed with regard to the Balaji Mandir, which is situated on S. The prosecution Supreme Court Law firms – helpful site – alleged that in pursuance of the common object of the assembly Gurdip Singh was murdered and injuries caused to Harnam Singh.
” This decision can be distinguished on two grounds: (1) the number fell below the required number and (2) it was not possible to reach a conclusion in that case that the appellant shared the common intention with another or others unknown. The question is whether acquittal of some of the accused persons reducing the number of those convicted to less than 5 has the effect of taking the case out of the purview of Section 149 (supra). of course he could have been charged in the alternative for having shared a common intention with another or others unknown.
So far as the finding can be said to have travelled beyond the letters of the 182 charge, the appellants have not proved any prejudice, and in the absence of prejudice no complaint can now De made of any defect in the charge. 878 and 153 the name of the Vahiwatdar has been mentioned, and the latter is a sanad of the Governor of Bombay confirming the grant free from land revenue. State of Punjab[1] examined that question and authoritatively answered the same.
This land was granted to one of the appellant’s predecessors by Ex. Act by Act 68 of 1984 with effect from 24. It was a preliminary meeting at which the Board set up a sub- committee consisting Of Shri A. laid down the test of obscenity in the following words:- I think the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall it is quite certain that it would suggest to the minds of the young of either sex, or even to persons of more advanced years, thoughts of a most impure and libidinous character.
That consideration apart, any mere error, omission or irregularity in the charge will not invalidate the finding in this case as -a matter of law. At that time 3 bighas of land were given to Bapaji Buva, son of Timayya, because he was a “worthy and respectful ” Brahman, for the express purpose of building a temple. Sub-sections (3A) and (3B) have been introduced into the L. Sri Kesava Menon and Shri G. The prosecution story in that case also was that on the date of the incident 5 accused persons composed an unlawful assembly and that advocates in Supreme Court prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, they committed rioting while armed with deadly weapons.
But even then, the common intention would have to be proved either by direct evidence or by legitimate inference. Section 149 of the IPC reads: In terms of Section 149 of the IPC every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of the offence committed by any other member of the assembly in prosecution of the common object. We have already held that the public have a right in the deity and the temple is also public and (1) (1925) L.
Narasimhan were not present at this meeting. After dealing with the said facet, the Supreme Court Law firms referred to various decisions of the English Courts, especially to Hicklin (supra), wherein the Queens Bench was called upon to consider a pamphlet, the nature of which can be gathered from the title and the colophon which read:- The Confession Unmasked, showing the depravity of Romish priesthood, the enquity of the confessional, and the questions, put to females in confession.
(4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) are applicable, the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of section 5A shall not apply, and, if it does so direct, a declaration may be made under section 6 in respect of the land at any time after the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1). 54 The first meeting of the Board was held on May 26, 1956, lawyers in Supreme Court the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan at Bombay.
The original grant was obviously made not to the Brahman concerned but for the express purpose of building a temple upon the land. A Constitution Bench of this Supreme Court lawyers (their explanation) has in Mohan Singh v. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It was bilingual with Latin and English texts on opposite pages and the latter half of the pamphlet according to the report was grossly obscene relating to impure and filthy acts, words or ideas.
In our case the number of convicted persons is four and each of them had the necessary common intention ; It is impossible to reach such a conclusion on the evidence in this case once the co-accused are eliminated because the whole gravamen of the charge and of the evidence is that the appellant shared the common intention with those other four and not with others who are unknown.