Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Dasappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Dasappa vs State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Jan 25, 1974
~5 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/373377

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

- Section 26: [Ram Mohan Reddy,J] Custody of child Rejection of application made under Order 7, Rule 11 (A) C.P.C., - Order passed by Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Sep...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dasappa

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Legal References

Reported In
1975CriLJ1613

Excerpt

- section 26: [ram mohan reddy,j] custody of child rejection of application made under order 7, rule 11 (a) c.p.c., - order passed by family court - decree of divorce by mutual consent and childs custody in terms of the compromise - difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -separate application by the parties under section 26 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 for custody of the child - petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the apex court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- application filed by the respondent under section 26 of the act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006. petitioners objections - at the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under order vii rule 11(a) c.p.c. to reject the application filed by the respondent under section 26 held, there can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. indisputably, the object of order 7, rule 11 is to keep out of courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. the question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under order 7, rule 11(a) cpc, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under order 7, rule 11(a). if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the..........he was unable to give satisfactory account of himself at that place and at that hour and that he had no ostensible means of subsistence, he was arrested and was produced before the sub-divisional magistrate, chitradurga to take action against him under section 109 criminal p. c. the petitioner stated that he was a resident of kasavanahally; he had no permanent source of income, but he was eking out his livelihood by doing cooley work and that he was taken into custody when he was in his house. the teamed magistrate passed the following order:hiriyur police placed a charge sheet against the respondent under section 109 criminal p. c. accused is in judicial custody and produced before court. property, i. e. iron rod is produced before court,respondent present. he states that he is living on cooley. he further states he was in his house at kasavanahalli and police took him to custody. he however pleads to be excused. he has no permanent source of income. he is bound over for a day, i. e. till rising of the court today. property may be destroyed.section 109 criminal p. c. reads thus:when ever a presidency magistrate, district magistrate, sub-divisional magistrate or magistrate of the first class receives information - (a) that any person is taking precautions to conceal his presence within the local limits of such magistrate's jurisdiction, and that there is reason to believe that such person is taking such precautions with a view to committing any offence, or (b) that there is within such limits a person who has no ostensible means of subsistence, or who cannot give a satisfactory account of himself.such magistrate may, in manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding one year, as the magistrate thinks fit to fix.clause (a) of section 109 lays down two prerequisites before an order under that section can be made against a person, viz.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

C. Honniah, J.

1. On the night of 10-9-1973 at about -3 A. M. the petitioner was accosted by a Police Officer in front of a shop in V. V. Pura. It was alleged that he was unable to give satisfactory account of himself at that place and at that hour and that he had no ostensible means of subsistence, He was arrested and was produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chitradurga to take action against him under Section 109 Criminal P. C. The petitioner stated that he was a resident of Kasavanahally; he had no permanent source of income, but he was eking out his livelihood by doing Cooley work and that he was taken into custody when he was in his house. The teamed Magistrate passed the following order:

Hiriyur Police placed a charge sheet against the respondent under Section 109 Criminal P. C. Accused is in judicial custody and produced before Court. Property, i. e. iron rod is produced before court,

Respondent present. He states that he is living on Cooley. He further states he was in his house at Kasavanahalli and police took him to custody. He however pleads to be excused. He has no permanent source of income. He is bound over for a day, i. e. till rising of the Court today. Property may be destroyed.

Section 109 Criminal P. C. reads thus:

When ever a Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first Class receives information - (a) that any person is taking precautions to conceal his presence within the local limits of such Magistrate's jurisdiction, and that there is reason to believe that such person is taking such precautions with a view to committing any offence, or (b) that there is within such limits a person who has no ostensible means of subsistence, or who cannot give a satisfactory account of himself.

Such Magistrate may, in manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit to fix.

Clause (a) of Section 109 lays down two prerequisites before an order under that section can be made against a person, viz : {i) that the person concerned must be taking precaution to conceal his presence and (ii) that there is reason to believe that such person is taking such precaution with a view to committing an offence. Clause (b) is divided into two parts : want of ostensible means of .subsistence and inability to give satisfactory account of one's self. Either of these, it proved, justifies an order under Section 109.

2. In this case the accusation against the petitioner was both, trader Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Section 109. If the Sub-Divisional Magistrate wanted to proceed against the petitioner under this section, he was bound to pass an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sure-ties required, as provided under Section 112, Criminal P. C. After passing an order under Section 112 Criminal P. C. the Magistrate should read and explain the substance of the order as provided trader Section 113 to the person present in court or when any person appears or is brought before him and thereafter shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action was taken and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary as provided in Section 117 Criminal P. C.

3. In this case the procedure prescribed has not been followed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner did not plead guilty to the charge levelled against him. As a matter of fact, no charge was read over to the petitioner, as could be seen from the records. Therefore, it was incumbent on the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to have inquired into the truth of the allegation and men if there was any truth he should have proceeded to pass an order under Section 118,

4. The provisions of Section 109, Criminal P. C. are so stringent that it may be made an engine of oppression unless care is taken by Magistrates to prevent its abuse. The object of the section is to enable Magistrates to take action against suspicious strangers lurking within their jurisdiction. Merely to be penniless or out of work is no offence. Nor is it an offence if a person has no permanent house. Many an honest man may find himself in either predicament. In our country where there are workless people and casual labourers, if it were the law that such persona are to be exposed to proceedings under Section 109(b) merely because they cannot give satisfactory account of the manner in which they are eking out their precarious existence, the courts would be full indeed and much injustice might be done to innocent persons. II a person is unable to prove the source of his livelihood he ought not to be ordered to execute a bond under Sections 109 and 118 unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that he is sustaining himself by some dishonest means : for such an order can only be made where it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour.

5. In so far as the allegation against the petitioner that he was found at an odd hour in front of a shop is concerned, except the allegation, there is nothing in this case to show that he was concealing himself in a suspicious mariner in order to commit an offence. When the accused pleaded not guilty to the accusation against him, it was incumbent on the Magistrate to have followed the procedure laid down under Sections 109, 112, 113 and 117. That having not been followed, the order passed by him under Section 118 is wholly illegal.

6. I, therefore, allow this revision petition and set aside the order in question.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial