Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)Prahladbhai Ambalal Patel vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 16 April, 1984
7. It is indeed true that looking to the above said two Full Bench pronouncements, the accused loses both the grounds of defence on which be was able to secure the acquittal before the first appellate Court. But the matter would not rest here, as indicated by me earlier. The Learned Counsel for the respondent-accused, Mr. J.S. Adhvaryu, would invoke the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling and would urge that the offence, according to the prosecution, was committed on 16 September, 1982 and that the complaint in this respect came to be filed on 21 January, 1983 while the judgment of conviction and sentence came to be pronounced by the trial Court on 30 July, 1983. The Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1983 came to be decided by the first appellate Court vide orders dated 8 December, 1983. Thus, the Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 would urge that even on the date of the alleged commission of the offence and on the date on which the appeal came to be allowed vide orders dated 8th December, 1983 the law laid down by this Court for this State was being reflected in the orders of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 752 of 1967, decided on 26 September, 1980. The Learned Counsel for the respondent-accused would further urge that the law which was holding the field in this respect, right from year 1967 in one respect and right from the year 1980 in another respect came to be altered only in the month of April, 1984 by the above said two Full Bench decisions. In other words, the contention being raised by the Learned Counsel is that at the material time the law holding the field, was in favour of the respondent No. 1 herein and that the change brought by the said two Full Bench pronouncements, altering the settled legal position should have been given a prospective effect only. In other words, the Learned Counsel want to call in aid, the Principle or the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling.
State Of Kerala Etc. Etc vs Alaserry Mohammed Etc. Etc on 10 February, 1978
Lastly, in State of Rajasthan v. Khem Chand 1990 (2) FAC 341 the Rajasthan High Court has accepted the very same principles, placing reliance upon the say of the Supreme Court in case of Alaserry Mohammed (supra).
Rajaldas Gurunamal Pamanani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 1974
Thus, it is clear that the earlier view taken by the Supreme Court in case of Pamanani (supra) came to be altered by this larger Bench decision. The law which was holding the field for a pretty long time as a consequence of a Supreme Court pronouncement, came to be set at naught by a decision pronounced by the later larger Bench. Naturally, the question had arisen as to what should be done in respect of so many cases which might have resulted, either in conviction or acquittal during the interregnum. The Supreme Court would take a note of this by saying that some cases would have resulted into acquittal while some cases may not have been decided in this fashion. But looking to the totality, the facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court has felt that the justice would not require that they should interfere with the orders of acquittal in all such cases and send some cases back to the High Court. Thus, it is apparent that the Supreme Court has leaned towards the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling, because, though the earlier view which was holding the field for a pretty long time came to be altered, the Supreme Court thought it fit and proper not to interfere with the orders of acquittal, in those cases which were decided before the alteration of the legal position consequent to the pronouncement of the larger Bench.
Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971
13. The facts, therefore, would justify the acceptance of the Doctrine or Prospective Overruling. The question as to whether in fact the recognition of the doctrine is called for should be answered with the assistance of the above said pronouncement on which the Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has placed reliance. The compactus of the decisions is in favour of the respondent-accused. It is thus clear that the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling which is canvassed by the Learned Counsel for the respondent-accused requires to be recognised. If this is once done, the consequences are not unknown- As done in case of Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation (supra) the order of acquittal passed by the Court below cannot be set aside, but the respondent No. 1 herein should be held only technically guilty. The appeal shall have to be allowed for this limited purpose only.
Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Anr. on 1 May, 1978
In Delhi Bottling Private Limited v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi, 1978 (I) FAC 261 the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling has been accepted by the Delhi High Court. In the said case the discharge of the two companies was maintained by the Sessions Court for the reason that a company or a firm could be indicated and punished only for an offence for which the imprisonment was not mandatory and that since the offence with which the Company was charged was compulsorily punishable with imprisonment the Company as such could not be prosecuted.
Rameshwar Dass Chottey Lal And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 10 October, 1969
This had happened because of the decision in M/s. Kameshwar Chhote Lal & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1974 FAC 176.
B.M. Darji vs Biharilal Karulal And Anr. on 20 April, 1984
6. Now when the present appeal is being beard in May 1994 the Learned Counsel, Mr. S.N. Shelat, who appears on behalf of the appellant-original complainant, would place reliance upon two Full Bench Decisions of this Court with a view to urge that there has been an altogether change in the legal position and that the view taken by the Court below appears to be erroneous because, those two unreported decisions on which the reliance was placed at the time of the decision of the first appeal do not hold the field. The Learned Counsel for the appellant would place reliance firstly upon a Full Bench pronouncement of this Court in case of B.M. Darji Food-Inspector v. Biharilal Kanulal, 1.984 GLH 394. This Full Bench decision takes a view that when a Food-Inspector speaks of addition of formalin to the sample taken by him, it must be taken to the formalin of the strength contemplated under Rule 20 of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, because the term 'formalin' refers to 40% by solution of formaldehyde. Thus, it is clear that this Full Bench pronouncement would overrule all what has been said in Criminal Appeal No. 752 of 1967 which came to be decided on 17 February, 1969.
I.C. Golak Nath And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 27 February, 1967
While coming to this conclusion a reference was made to the Supreme Court pronouncement in case of Alaserry Mohammed (supra) and also to the Supreme Court pronouncement in L.C. Golak Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab wherein it was observed as under:
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Kishan Das & Another on 19 September, 1968
10. A similar view came to be taken once again by the Delhi High Court in N.D.M.C. v. Shri Gwumukh Das & Am. 1978 (1) FAC 266. The Delhi High Court has noticed while deciding not to interfere in revision, that the case under revision was decided in the year 1976 at a time when the Supreme Court decision was the law in force in India.