State Vs. Miya Jani

State vs Miya Jani

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Oct 23, 1959

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/373258

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/373258
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Nittoor Sreenivasa Rau, J.
Decided On: Oct 23, 1959
Case Number: Criminal Revn. Case No. 40 of 1959
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978, Sections 3(e) & 4: [Arali Nagaraj,J] Usufructuary mortgage of granted land Validity - Suit for permanent injunction against defendants restraining them from interfering with taking of the yield of fruits from mang...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 236, 237, 342, 364 and 364(2); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 379 and 411

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State

Advocate M. Santosh, High Court Govt. Pleader

Respondent

Miya Jani

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 236, 237, 342, 364 and 364(2); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 379 and 411
Reported In: AIR1961Kant158; AIR1961Mys158; 1961CriLJ827

Excerpt

.....grown thereon entitling the plaintiff to enjoy te fruits of the said trees for a period of 40 years from the date of the document and as such the said document could only be a mortgage deed in substance and not a sale deed. the transaction was transfer within the meaning of section 3(e) of the ptcl act. section 4 of ptcl act prohibits the transfer of granted lands. sub section (2) of section 4 further provides that no person shall, after the commencement of the said, act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the government. the mortgage of the said land by the defendant/grantee in favour of the plaintiff authorizing the plaintiff to enjoy usufructs was clearly in violation of the provisions of section 4 of the ptcl act. the burden is heavy on the plaintiff to prove that the said mortgage was not obtained by him in contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the ptcl act. on facts held, the transaction is in total violation of the provisions of section 4(1) of the ptcl act, the possession of the land in question along with the mango trees grown thereon by the plaintiff could not be held to be lawful possession. therefore, the appellate court was quite justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit. .....different from that with which he was charged was not a formal defect as the accused, not having had an opportunity to meet the case against him under section 411 i. p. c., was prejudiced. the learned district magistrate also draws attention to the fact that the examination of the accused under section 342, criminal procedure code, was defective as the accused had not been questioned properly and further that the record of the examination does not bear a certificate in the handwriting of the presiding officer fulfilling the requirements of section 364, criminal procedure code. the learned government pleader supports the reference.2. it is true that in certain circumstances an offence under section 411 and one under section 379, i. p. c. may come within the purview of section 236,criminal procedure code, and the accused may be charged with having committed one or the other of these two offences and by virtue of section 237, of the criminal procedure code, even if the accused is charged with an offence under section 379, i. p. c., he may be convicted of an offence under section 411, i.i.c.but that would depend upon the circumstances of the case. if the case put forward by the prosecution is that the accused actually committed theft and without his being given an opportunity to meet a case under section 411, i. p. c., which requires the proof of several ingredients to constitute the offence viz., knowledge or belief that the property in question is stolen and dishonest intention in receiving and retaining the stolen property, it cannot be said that the conviction for the latter offence is proper.as already mentioned above, the learned district magistrate is of the view that the accused had no such opportunity. on an examination of the record, i find that the case put forward by the prosecution was not that the accused was caught when ho was removing the football bladders from the package in the railway wagon but that he was found in possession of three football.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrale, Raicliur, expressing the view that the conviction of the accused in Criminal Case No. 203/18 of 1958-59 by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Raichur, is unsustainable and recommending that the conviction he set aside. The accused was charged with an offence under section 379, I. P. C., on the ground that he stole three football bladder? from a package in a wagon in the railway station yard, Raichur. The learned Magistrate, however, convicted the accused for an offence under Section 411, I. P. C.

The learned District Magistrate is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, the conviction of the accused for an offence different from that with which he was charged was not a formal defect as the accused, not having had an opportunity to meet the case against him under Section 411 I. P. C., was prejudiced. The learned District Magistrate also draws attention to the fact that the examination of the accused under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, was defective as the accused had not been questioned properly and further that the record of the examination does not bear a certificate in the handwriting of the presiding officer fulfilling the requirements of Section 364, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Government Pleader supports the reference.

2. It is true that in certain circumstances an offence under Section 411 and one under Section 379, I. P. C. may come within the purview of Section 236,Criminal Procedure Code, and the accused may be charged with having committed one or the other of these two offences and by virtue of Section 237, of the Criminal Procedure Code, even if the accused is charged with an offence under Section 379, I. P. C., he may be convicted of an offence under Section 411, I.I.C.

But that would depend upon the circumstances of the case. If the case put forward by the prosecution is that the accused actually committed theft and without his being given an opportunity to meet a case under Section 411, I. P. C., which requires the proof of several ingredients to constitute the offence viz., knowledge or belief that the property in question is stolen and dishonest intention in receiving and retaining the stolen property, it cannot be said that the conviction for the latter offence is proper.

As already mentioned above, the learned District Magistrate is of the view that the accused had no such opportunity. On an examination of the record, I find that the case put forward by the prosecution was not that the accused was caught when ho was removing the football bladders from the package in the railway wagon but that he was found in possession of three football bladders and that they formed part of the contents of a package in a railway wagon.

It would perhaps have been more appropriate to charge the accused with an offence under section 411, I. P. C. or to place alternative charges against him under Section 379 I. P. C. and under Section 411 I. P. C, Even in the examination under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, it is the above case that is put to the accused and the latter's explanation is that he had not cut the package, that he found it torn and the bladders lying outside, that when he was carrying the bladders to replace them he was caught and that the Police when they took charge of him asked him to put the bladders in the pocket of his knickers where-from he produced them before the panches.

No doubt the prosecution witnesses have given evidence to the effect that the accused admitted having removed the bladders from the wagon. This has been denied by the accused and is really in the nature of an exits-judicialconfession and very little value can be attached to it. The accused's explanation cannot be said to be untenable on the face of it and is consistent with the facts established by the prosecution. Further as pointed out by the learned District Magistrate, the accused's statement has not been certified by the trial Magistrate as required under Section 364, Criminal Procedure Code.

All that is found at the end of the statement is 'Explained over in Urdu and admitted.' The Magistrate or Judge has to certify under big own hand that the examination was made in his presence and hearing and that the record contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused. This is not a mere formality as it is intended to safeguard the interests of the accused whenever he is examined by any Magistrate or by any subordinate Court. The omission to make the prescribed certificate is a serious infirmity.

3. In the light of all these circumstances, it appears to me that the conviction cannot be sustained. The conviction, and the sentence are accordingly set aside and the accused is acquitted.The fine, if paid by him, shall be refunded.

4. Conviction and sentence set aside.

Same Parties State vs Miya Jani Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Nittoor Sreenivasa Rau, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 236, 237,...

Criminal