State of Mysore Vs. A.G. Ramaswamy

State of Mysore vs A.G. Ramaswamy

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Dec 19, 1967

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/373266

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/373266
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: C. Honniah, J.
Decided On: Dec 19, 1967
Case Number: Criminal Revn. Case No. 45 of 1967
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) , 1889 - Sections 249, 483 and 540; Mysore Prohibition Act - Sections 12 and 59

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Mysore

Respondent

A.G. Ramaswamy

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1889 - Sections 249, 483 and 540; Mysore Prohibition Act - Sections 12 and 59
Reported In: AIR1969Kant22; AIR1969Mys22; 1969CriLJ123

Excerpt

.....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. - order 1. this is a reference under section 483 of the code of criminal procedure, by the sessions judge, chitradurga, recommended to set aside the order passed by the special first class magistrate, davanagere, in criminal case no......this is a reference under section 483 of the code of criminal procedure, by the sessions judge, chitradurga, recommended to set aside the order passed by the special first class magistrate, davanagere, in criminal case no. 2892 of 1967.2. the facts which have given rise to this reference are these: the sub-inspector of police davanagere filed a charge sheet on 25-5-1966 against one a. g. ramaswamy (respondent in the reference) in the court of the special first class magistrate, davanagere, alleging that he was in possession of some brandy bottles without a valid permit and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 12(a) read with section 59(b) of the mysore prohibition act. for one reason or the other, the respondent did not appear before the court. therefore, the learned magistrate stopped the proceedings under section 249 cr.p.c. on 14-6-66.after nearly 13 months the prosecution filed an application on 28-7-1967, requesting the court to revive the proceedings, stating that the respondent had been traced. the learned magistrate revived the case and took the case on his file giving c. c. no. 2897/67. on that day the prosecution filed an application along with three references, requesting the court to include the names of three witnesses mentioned in the said application and to issue summonses to them. the magistrate posted the case to 31-7-67 for filing the objection by the respondent, if any, to the said application. on that day, no objections were filed. thereafter the learned magistrate passed an order dated 2-8-1967, rejecting the application filed by the prosecution to examine additional witnesses. the learned sessions judge has made this reference to set aside the said order.3. it could be seen from the order of the learned magistrate that no provision of law was mentioned in the application under which the prosecution sought to examine three additional witnesses. however, the learned magistrate, took the application to be one under section.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This is a reference under section 483 of the code of Criminal Procedure, by the Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, recommended to set aside the order passed by the Special First Class Magistrate, Davanagere, in Criminal Case No. 2892 of 1967.

2. The facts which have given rise to this reference are these: The Sub-Inspector of Police Davanagere filed a charge sheet on 25-5-1966 against one A. G. Ramaswamy (respondent in the reference) in the Court of the Special First Class Magistrate, Davanagere, alleging that he was in possession of some brandy bottles without a valid permit and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 12(a) read with section 59(b) of the Mysore Prohibition Act. For one reason or the other, the respondent did not appear before the Court. Therefore, the learned Magistrate stopped the proceedings under section 249 Cr.P.C. on 14-6-66.

After nearly 13 months the prosecution filed an application on 28-7-1967, requesting the Court to revive the proceedings, stating that the respondent had been traced. The learned Magistrate revived the case and took the case on his file giving C. C. No. 2897/67. On that day the prosecution filed an application along with three references, requesting the Court to include the names of three witnesses mentioned in the said application and to issue summonses to them. the Magistrate posted the case to 31-7-67 for filing the objection by the respondent, if any, to the said application. On that day, no objections were filed. Thereafter the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 2-8-1967, rejecting the application filed by the prosecution to examine additional witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has made this reference to set aside the said order.

3. It could be seen from the order of the learned Magistrate that no provision of law was mentioned in the application under which the prosecution sought to examine three additional witnesses. However, the learned Magistrate, took the application to be one under Section 540 Cr.P.C. He rejected the application mainly on the ground that no material was placed before him in the application that the evidence of the three witnesses was essential for the just decision of the case in order to exercise the discretion given to him under section 540 Cr.P.C. In disposing of the application he stated thus:

'Even the reasons are not forthcoming to show that the evidence of these witnesses is essential to the just decision of the case. In what manner the evidence is necessary and why they kept back all these documents, are not forthcoming. Therefore I cannot exercise my power under Section 540 Cr.P.C.'

The first part of Section 540 Cr.P.C. gives purely discretionary authority to the Criminal Court and enables it at any stage of an enquiry, trial or proceeding under the code to summon any one as witness or to examine any person present in Court or to recall and re-examine any person whose evidence has already been recorded. The second part is mandatory and compels the Court to take any of the aforementioned steps if the new evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case. When the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent the witnesses now sought to be examined were not mentioned. No reasons are given in the application why these three witnesses should be examined in the case. Nor it is stated in the application why the evidence of these witnesses is necessary.

4. The prosecution were in possession of all the materials on which they sought to establish the charges against the respondent, at the time the charge-sheet was filed. If the prosecution withheld some materials and then at a later stage wanted to produce them even without stating the necessity for such materials, the Court cannot exercise its power under Section 540 Cr. P.C. If the Court exercises the powers on such an application, it will only amount to filling up a gap in the prosecution case. As the application filed by the prosecution was bald and did not disclose that the evidence sought to be proved was for the just decision of the case, the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting that application.

5. In these circumstances, the reference cannot be accepted and the same is rejected.

6. Reference rejected.

Same Parties State of Mysore vs A.G. Ramaswamy Same Subject Criminal Same Judge C. Honniah, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1889 - Sections 249, 483 ...

Criminal