JANARDHAN REDDY Vs. STATE OF HYDERABAD
LAWS(SC)-1951-3-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 16,1951

JANARDHAN REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HYDERABAD Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BABULAL CHAUKHANI VS. KING [REFERRED]
V. M. ABDUL RAHMAN VS. KING-EMPEROR [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

P L LAKHANPAL VS. AJIT NATH ROY CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA NEW DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1974-2-1] [REFFERRED TO]
AZMAT ULLAH VS. CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY U P LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-1954-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NATH KOERI VS. LAKSHMI DEVI SUGAR MILLS AND 2 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-1955-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH GANDHI VS. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL [LAWS(ALL)-1965-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM VS. SHEO PRASAD AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-1972-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN VS. APPU MENON [LAWS(KER)-1980-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA PRASAD VS. COLLECTOR DISTRICT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(ALL)-2011-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
GHANASHYAM DAS VS. CUTTACK MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(ORI)-1977-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
AMAL CHANDRA MONDAL VS. ANITA BISWAS [LAWS(CAL)-2005-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
PANCHU GOPAL DAS VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1967-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
OWNERS AND PARTNERS OF THE FIRM NAMED SHAH KANTILAL VS. DOMINION OF INDIA OWING EAST INDIAN RAILWAY [LAWS(CAL)-1953-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
DES RAJ DHANPAT MAL VS. STATE [LAWS(P&H)-1957-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
AB RAHIM RATHER VS. SPECIAL TRIBUNAL, J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2009-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
DARYAO HURMAT S O SATWA MAHENDRA LAL JAINI ROOP CHAND BRUHAN KUMAR SADASHIV RAMCHANDRA DALVI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1961-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
MATHURA PRASAD PRABHUDEYAL VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1952-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARDHUBI FIRECLAY AND SILICA WORKS LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1958-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY LAKHE PATIL VS. HARIBHAU BAGADE [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-102] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDA PANICKER VS. SREEDHARA WARRIER [LAWS(KER)-2000-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
AIR FOAM INDUSTIRES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1973-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
BOUCHER PIERRE AUDRE VS. SUPRINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL NEW DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1974-9-3] [REFERRED]
J H V SUGAR CORPORATION LTD VS. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY U P AT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2001-2-90] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN SHARMA VS. V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MORADABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1976-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
MADAMBI VS. KUNHUKUTTY AMMA [LAWS(KER)-1974-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR LAL SONI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2004-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD NOOH [LAWS(SC)-1957-9-19] [DISTINGUISHED]
RADHEYSHIAM VS. FIRM SAWAI MODI BASDEO PRASAD [LAWS(RAJ)-1953-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
KHOOB CHANDRA KEDIA VS. ADDL. DIST. JUDGE III AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-105] [REFERRED TO]
RACHNA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
V RAMACHANDRA RAO VS. ANDHRA PRADESH REGIONAL COMMITTEE [LAWS(APH)-1964-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAMONI DASI VS. BASER MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-1962-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KISHORE RABIDAS VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1968-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL VS. CUSTODIAN RAJASTHAN JODHPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1953-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISHBHAI THAKORE VS. CHANDRIKABEN CHUDASMA [LAWS(GJH)-2007-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
KURDIA VS. SURTA [LAWS(P&H)-1991-9-169] [REFERRED]
MAHARSHI DAYANAND HIGH SCHOOL JAUNPUR VS. COLLECTOR/DISTRICT D D C JAUNPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2011-4-210] [REFERRED TO]
R. THAMARAIKANI O.S. MANIAN VS. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9, [LAWS(MAD)-2000-12-123] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. DUKHI DEI [LAWS(ORI)-1962-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI DEVI SUGAR MILLS LTD VS. U P GOVERNMENT [LAWS(ALL)-1954-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
MAN SINGH VS. BIR SAHAI [LAWS(ALL)-1973-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI LAL PURSHOTTAM DAS VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(ALL)-1959-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
JAI SHREE TYRE AND RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD VS. MILLAN MUKERJI [LAWS(ALL)-1985-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
SHEIKH MONSHI VS. IMAM KHAN [LAWS(MPH)-1961-9-35] [REFERRED]
BIRICHH BUIAN VS. STATE [LAWS(PAT)-1960-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(MPH)-2019-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH T KILACHAND VS. SAMPAT SHRIPAT LAMBATE [LAWS(BOM)-1991-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
GNANAMONI ROSAMMA VS. THANKAPPAN NAIR [LAWS(KER)-1989-7-70] [REFERRED TO]
S. GUNASEKARAN VS. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-261] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVASH KUMAR SAHOO VS. HONBLE SPEAKER [LAWS(ORI)-2003-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
TEKCHAND MEGHRAJ VS. MUNICIPAL COMMR. [LAWS(MPH)-1954-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KUMAR SEN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1952-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR BANERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1973-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
RAJPUT TEJSINH PRATAPSINGH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1968-8-2] [REFERRED]
K.RAJALINGAM VS. R.SUGANTHALAKSHMI [LAWS(MAD)-2020-5-39] [REFERRED TO]
SAGARMAL JAIN VS. RAMJIWAN SAH [LAWS(PAT)-1952-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
BIRICHH BHUIAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1962-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. M K KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR MANJERI MANIKOTH NADUVIL DEAD [LAWS(SC)-1995-12-55] [RELIED ON]
A K BOSE VS. TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-117] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1992-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
BIMALENDU GHOSE VS. MUKTI GHOSE [LAWS(CAL)-2008-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHANGSHU SEKHAR MAITY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-1-90] [REFERRED TO]
DAYABHAI POONAMBHAI PATEL VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(MPH)-1951-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
DEWA KALU BALAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1959-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
MEWALAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-4-68] [REFERRED TO]
SAKIRA VS. COLLECTOR DISTRICT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION JAUNPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2011-4-122] [REFERRED TO]
WING COMMANDER RAJIV ARORA VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-204] [REFERRED TO]
SHAJU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
HARIJANDER SINGH VS. SELECTION COMMITTEE KAKATIYA MEDICAL COLLEGE WARRANGAL [LAWS(APH)-1974-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTIA VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1953-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. ABDUL AZIZ [LAWS(ALL)-1955-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
SARJUDEI VS. RAMPATI KUNWARI [LAWS(ALL)-1961-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
P KANNAN KUNHIMANGALAM VS. FOOD INSPECTOR CANNANORE MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(KER)-1964-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
SHEIK BABU VS. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAJKADAI POLICE STATION DHARMAPURI DISTRICT [LAWS(MAD)-1993-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
M P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. DASHRATH SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-1992-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
RANJAN DWIVEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1983-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. KHASGI (DEVI AHILYA BAI HOLKAR CHARITIES) TRUST, INDORE [LAWS(MPH)-2020-10-30] [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-80] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ALI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
NAVIN KUMAR AGARWAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOLKATA [LAWS(CAL)-2015-5-26] [REFERRED TO]
JAGABANDHU DAS VS. BABAJI JENA [LAWS(ORI)-1953-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
KURIAKOSE VS. VARKEY [LAWS(KER)-1987-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
SIGMA AGENCIES P LTD VS. P V THOMAS [LAWS(KER)-1990-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. BIMALA SAHA & ORS. VS. BIJOY KUMAR SAHA & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2001-5-53] [REFERRED TO]
MANNALAL KHATIC VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1966-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
REVABEN VS. VINUBHAI PURSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2013-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
RANI RAJ RAJESHWARI DEVI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1954-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-3-194] [REFERRED TO]
TRIDESHWARDAYAL VS. MAHBSHWARDAYAL [LAWS(SC)-1989-12-26] [RELIED ON]
VIJAY KUMAR CHAUDHARY VS. A.D.J./SPECIAL JUDGE (S.C./S.T. ACT), GORAKHPUR AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-185] [REFERRED TO]
H M SUBBARAYA SETTY AND SONS VS. S K PALANI CHETTY AND SONS [LAWS(KAR)-1952-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-6-60] [REFERRED TO]
A M PAULRAJ VS. SPEAKER T N LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY [LAWS(MAD)-1985-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
SITARAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1979-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
P VENKATA SOMARAJU VS. PRINCIPAL MUNSIF MAGISTRATE BHIMAVARAM WEST GODAVARI DIST [LAWS(APH)-1966-8-35] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI LAL VS. BHAGWAT SINGH MEHTA [LAWS(RAJ)-1951-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
JAMMO VS. SUPERINTENDENT, GOVT PROTECTIVE HOME MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-1962-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA SHANKER VS. COMMISSIONER, GORAKHPUR DIVISION AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1978-10-70] [REFERRED TO]
KUNJAN VS. JANAKI [LAWS(KER)-1980-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
BISMILLAH KHAN VS. COLLECTOR DISTRICT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(ALL)-2011-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
K V AMARNATH VS. DIRECTOR CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION NEW DELHI [LAWS(KAR)-1998-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
KISHENDAS VS. INDO CARNATIC BANK IN LIQUIDATION [LAWS(APH)-1957-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
H MSUBBARAYA SETTY AND SONS VS. S KPALANI CHETTY AND SONS [LAWS(KAR)-1952-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA GANDHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1988-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
H S VASANTASENAIAH VS. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1994-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
DHANDAPANI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2000-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT OF INDIA VS. SPECIAL COURTS BILL 1978 [LAWS(SC)-1978-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
SADHAN DUTTA ROY VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1977-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
HARDWARI LAL VS. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1977-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
SHAH PREMCHAND VS. SHAH DANMAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1953-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
BALADIN VS. RAM PIAREY [LAWS(ALL)-1952-8-37] [REFERRED TO]
ZIAULLAH KHAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1955-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI KHOMDRAM RATAN SINGH VS. THE STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2016-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
M S M SHARMA VS. KRISHNA SINHA [LAWS(SC)-1960-8-4] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These are six petitions which have been presented so this Court on behalf of three groups of persons in the following circumstances.
(2.)On 30-10-1948, the Military Governor of Hyderabad by virtue of the powers delegated to him by H. E. H. the Nizam enacted the Special Tribunals Regulation (No. 5 [V] of 1358-F), which was amended by several later Regulations issued on22-5-1949, 10-7-1949, 23rd July and 30-10-1949. The Regulation provided among other things that the Military Governor may constitute and Special Tribunal or Tribunals, each consisting of 3 members appointed by him, and that he may by general or special order direct that these Tribunals shall try any offence, whether committed before or after the commencement of the Regulation, or any class of offences. Section 8 of the Regulation empowered the Military Governor to direct, by order, that in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction, any power or duty conferred or imposed upon him by the Regulation may be exercised or discharged by any other authority. In accordance with the Regulation, certain Tribunals were constituted, and one of the Tribunals Tribunal A for Nalgonda dist.- proceeded to try certain cases made over to it by the Civil Administrator of Nalgonda under the powers vested in him by the Military Governor. Among the cases tried by this Tribunal were also three cases in which the petnrs. were concerned, these being regd. as criminal cases Nos. 14, 17 and 18 of 1949. These cases were based on three charge-sheets submitted by one Mr. Hanumantha Naidu, a senior police officer of Nalgonda dist., one of which was No.14 dated 7-4-1949, and the Other two were Nos. 14 and 15 dated 20-7-1949. In these charge-sheets, the accused were generally refd. to as "Communists wedded to the policy of overthrowing the Govt. by violence and setting up in its place Communist Raj." and the specific cases made out against them were briefly as follows. In the first case (criminal case No. 14 of 1949), the charge-sheet stated that the accused went to a certain village in Nalgonda dist. on 21-9-1948 "in khaki uniform and holding unnotified firearms," caught hold of four persons as they bad not paid the full subscription demanded of them, decoyed to the outskrits of the village and then "killed them by cutting their throats." In the second case (Criminal Case No. 17), it was stated that on 6-4-1949, at about 9 A.M, two of the accused came to a certain village and began to fire their guns, but when "the public" approached them asking them to surrender they ran away and joined the other persons accused in the case. Later on, all the accused "marched on the villagers" and opened fire at them indiscriminately with the result that one of them received an injury in his right thigh which subsequently proved fatal, and another received a minor injury on his left hand. The version given at the trial in this case was slightly different and shows that the two accused who had visited the village were chased by 50 or 100 persons to a place called Madireddychelka where the other accused joined them, and after parleying with the chasers, accused 4 fired and hit one of the villagers on the thigh and the latter died. Thereupon the accused chased the remaining villagers, firing their guns, and one of the bullets grazed the middle finger of one of the villagers and caused a slight injury to it. In the third case (criminal case No. 18), the facts were stated to be these: On the 15th May, at about midnight, the accused visited Kasthala village, carrying firearms and dressed in khaki uniform. They got upon the terrace of one Kankayya where one Natala Rama Reddy was sleeping, caught hold of him and took him forcibly to the outskirts of the village in spite of the protests of a number of villagers who had followed, and "killed him by firing gunshots at him."
(3.)Upon these facts, the trial of the petnrs. proceeded, and they were ultimately convicted of murder and sentenced to death, and also convicted of certain other offences including the offence of carrying firearms without licenses and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. After their conviction, the petnrs. appealed to the Hyderabad H. C., but their convictions and sentences were confirmed. Thereafter, they tried to obtain the leave of the H. C. for appealing to the Judicial Committee of Hyderabad, but, while their applns. were still pending, the Const. Ind. came into force and since the Judicial Committee ceased to function under the new Constitution they amended their original appln. by asking for leave to appeal to this Ct. under Art.134 (c) of the Constitution. This appln. being unsuccessful, they applied to this Ct. for special leave to appeal, but that appln. was dismissed on the ground that this Ct. had no jurisdiction under Art. 186 of the Constitution to hear an appeal from a judgment delivered by the H. C. at Hyderabad before 26-1-1950, since that Ct. was not within the territory of India. The petnrs. then made applns. to the H. C. under Art. 226 of the Constitution and those applns. having been rejected, they filed two sets of petns. in this Ct. one under Art. 82 of the Constitution, and the other for special leave to appeal against the order of the H. C. refusing to grant them relief under Art. 226.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.