Semantic Analysis by spaCy
K. Bomanji Wookerji Vs. State of Mysore
Decided On : Jan-04-1955
Court : Karnataka
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'K. Bomanji Wookerji Vs. State of Mysore Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 420', (int) 1 => 'Section 49(SIC', (int) 2 => 'Section 498', (int) 3 => 'Section 498', (int) 4 => 'Section 497', (int) 5 => 'Section 497', (int) 6 => 'Section 561-A of the Code ofCriminal Procedure', (int) 7 => 'Section 92' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER1', (int) 1 => 'Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'Magistrate', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'the High Court', (int) 5 => 'Magistrate', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Asst', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'the High Court', (int) 10 => 'Magistrate', (int) 11 => 'SessionJudge' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'two', (int) 1 => '25,000/-', (int) 2 => 'two', (int) 3 => '2', (int) 4 => '497', (int) 5 => '498', (int) 6 => '5', (int) 7 => '39', (int) 8 => '4.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2500/-', (int) 1 => '1945', (int) 2 => '1102' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Govindarajulu', (int) 1 => 'Madras', (int) 2 => 'Seoli' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sections 496' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'lawThese' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '371949', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/133280/code-of-criminal-procedure-1898-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898</a> - Sections 49, 92, 496, 497, 497(5), 498 and 561-A; <a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 420', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revn. Petn. Nos. 307 and 308 of 1954', 'appellant' => 'K. Bomanji Wookerji', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'K. Bomanji Wookerji Vs. State of Mysore', 'casenote' => ' - Section 20 & Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), Sections 11 & 12: [S.R. Bannurmath & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Penalty for disobedience - Disobedience of order passed by Karnataka Information Commission Maintainability of contempt petition - Held, Section 20 of RTI Act itself provides for remedy. Under Section 20 of RTI Act Commission is vested with power to penalize defaulting officer by imposing penalty up to Rs. 25,000/- and also recommend for disciplinary action against him. Thus Commission is empowered to enforce its own order. Remedy being available under RTI Act itself, contempt petition under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable. - 25,000/- and furnishing two sureties for a like sum. 2500/-.The requirements of this order were satisfied and the cases are still pending in the Magistrate's Court An application was filed on behalf of the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the petitioner was repeatedly absent on the dates;', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.K. Govindarajulu, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Asst. Adv. General', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1955-01-04', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two petitions in which the petitioner is the same and the point involved is common can be disposed of by a single order. Both relate to cases in which the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 420, I.P.C. which, according to the schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, is bailable. The petitioner applied for bail and the learned Magistrate granted it on condition of his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- and furnishing two sureties for a like sum. The amount- mentioned being felt to be excessive, the petitioner applied to the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, for reduction of the amount, and he reduced it to Rs. 2500/-. The requirements of this order were satisfied and the cases are still pending in the Magistrate's Court An application was filed on behalf of the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the petitioner was repeatedly absent on the dates; (SIC) hearing of the cases and the progress of the case was considerably retarded. The learned Judgment a summary order allowed the application and the correctness of this is impugned in this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The order of the learned Judge does not state the reasons lor it or the provision of law under which it purports to have been passed. Mr. Govindarajulu on behalf of the .petitioner re-presents that the order is unjust as the accused was not given opportunity to refute the allegations in the application and contends that it is in any event illegal and unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The provisions for grant and cancellation of bail are contained in Sections 496, 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 49(SIC) applies to cases of bailable offences; Section 49(SIC) to nonbailable offences for which punishment is other than death or transportation for life and under Section 498 power is given to the High Court or Court of Session to admit any person to bail or to reduce the bail required by the police officer or a Magistrate. In both cases against petitioner as already mentioned, the offences alleged are bailable and the order previously made by the learned Sessions Judge is stated to be under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since it only reduced the bail required by the Magistrate. There is no provision for cancellation of bail by the Sessions Judge when the offence alleged is bailable and cancellation is allowed in Sub-section (5) of Section 497 when the offences alleged are nonbailable and punishment for which is not death or transportation for life. The learned Asst. Advocate-General has fairly conceded that the order cannot be supported by any statutory provision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In -- 'Crown Prosecutor, Madras v. N.S.Krishnan', AIR 1945 Mad 250 (A) it was heldthat bail once granted cannot be cancelled bythe same Court under Section 497 and such an orderis permissible under Section 561-A of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. Section 561-A cannot be (SIC)vowed in the present case as It relates only to (SIC)powers of the High Court and not other Courts.To the same effect is the decision in -- 'Seoli (SIC)Rex1 : AIR1948All366 . If as stated in thepetition before the learned Sessions Judge theaccused by his absence is hindering the case frombeing proceeded with it is open to the trial Magistrate to apply the provisions of Section 92, CriminalP. C., as pointed out in 39 Mys HCR 1102 (C).The orders now passed by the learned SessionJudge cannot be regarded as warranted by lawThese are, therefore, set aside and the applications are allowed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Applications allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant96; AIR1955Mys96; 1955CriLJ973', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Mysore', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '371949' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'K. Bomanji Wookerji Vs. State of Mysore Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 420', (int) 1 => 'Section 49(SIC', (int) 2 => 'Section 498', (int) 3 => 'Section 498', (int) 4 => 'Section 497', (int) 5 => 'Section 497', (int) 6 => 'Section 561-A of the Code ofCriminal Procedure', (int) 7 => 'Section 92' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER1', (int) 1 => 'Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'Magistrate', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'the High Court', (int) 5 => 'Magistrate', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Asst', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'the High Court', (int) 10 => 'Magistrate', (int) 11 => 'SessionJudge' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'two', (int) 1 => '25,000/-', (int) 2 => 'two', (int) 3 => '2', (int) 4 => '497', (int) 5 => '498', (int) 6 => '5', (int) 7 => '39', (int) 8 => '4.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2500/-', (int) 1 => '1945', (int) 2 => '1102' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Govindarajulu', (int) 1 => 'Madras', (int) 2 => 'Seoli' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sections 496' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'lawThese' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '371949', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/133280/code-of-criminal-procedure-1898-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898</a> - Sections 49, 92, 496, 497, 497(5), 498 and 561-A; <a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 420', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revn. Petn. Nos. 307 and 308 of 1954', 'appellant' => 'K. Bomanji Wookerji', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'K. Bomanji Wookerji Vs. State of Mysore', 'casenote' => ' - Section 20 & Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), Sections 11 & 12: [S.R. Bannurmath & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Penalty for disobedience - Disobedience of order passed by Karnataka Information Commission Maintainability of contempt petition - Held, Section 20 of RTI Act itself provides for remedy. Under Section 20 of RTI Act Commission is vested with power to penalize defaulting officer by imposing penalty up to Rs. 25,000/- and also recommend for disciplinary action against him. Thus Commission is empowered to enforce its own order. Remedy being available under RTI Act itself, contempt petition under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable. - 25,000/- and furnishing two sureties for a like sum. 2500/-.The requirements of this order were satisfied and the cases are still pending in the Magistrate's Court An application was filed on behalf of the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the petitioner was repeatedly absent on the dates;', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.K. Govindarajulu, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Asst. Adv. General', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1955-01-04', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two petitions in which the petitioner is the same and the point involved is common can be disposed of by a single order. Both relate to cases in which the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 420, I.P.C. which, according to the schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, is bailable. The petitioner applied for bail and the learned Magistrate granted it on condition of his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- and furnishing two sureties for a like sum. The amount- mentioned being felt to be excessive, the petitioner applied to the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, for reduction of the amount, and he reduced it to Rs. 2500/-. The requirements of this order were satisfied and the cases are still pending in the Magistrate's Court An application was filed on behalf of the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the petitioner was repeatedly absent on the dates; (SIC) hearing of the cases and the progress of the case was considerably retarded. The learned Judgment a summary order allowed the application and the correctness of this is impugned in this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The order of the learned Judge does not state the reasons lor it or the provision of law under which it purports to have been passed. Mr. Govindarajulu on behalf of the .petitioner re-presents that the order is unjust as the accused was not given opportunity to refute the allegations in the application and contends that it is in any event illegal and unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The provisions for grant and cancellation of bail are contained in Sections 496, 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 49(SIC) applies to cases of bailable offences; Section 49(SIC) to nonbailable offences for which punishment is other than death or transportation for life and under Section 498 power is given to the High Court or Court of Session to admit any person to bail or to reduce the bail required by the police officer or a Magistrate. In both cases against petitioner as already mentioned, the offences alleged are bailable and the order previously made by the learned Sessions Judge is stated to be under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since it only reduced the bail required by the Magistrate. There is no provision for cancellation of bail by the Sessions Judge when the offence alleged is bailable and cancellation is allowed in Sub-section (5) of Section 497 when the offences alleged are nonbailable and punishment for which is not death or transportation for life. The learned Asst. Advocate-General has fairly conceded that the order cannot be supported by any statutory provision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In -- 'Crown Prosecutor, Madras v. N.S.Krishnan', AIR 1945 Mad 250 (A) it was heldthat bail once granted cannot be cancelled bythe same Court under Section 497 and such an orderis permissible under Section 561-A of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. Section 561-A cannot be (SIC)vowed in the present case as It relates only to (SIC)powers of the High Court and not other Courts.To the same effect is the decision in -- 'Seoli (SIC)Rex1 : AIR1948All366 . If as stated in thepetition before the learned Sessions Judge theaccused by his absence is hindering the case frombeing proceeded with it is open to the trial Magistrate to apply the provisions of Section 92, CriminalP. C., as pointed out in 39 Mys HCR 1102 (C).The orders now passed by the learned SessionJudge cannot be regarded as warranted by lawThese are, therefore, set aside and the applications are allowed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Applications allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant96; AIR1955Mys96; 1955CriLJ973', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Mysore', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '371949' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'K. Bomanji Wookerji Vs. State of Mysore Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 420', (int) 1 => 'Section 49(SIC', (int) 2 => 'Section 498', (int) 3 => 'Section 498', (int) 4 => 'Section 497', (int) 5 => 'Section 497', (int) 6 => 'Section 561-A of the Code ofCriminal Procedure', (int) 7 => 'Section 92' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER1', (int) 1 => 'Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'Magistrate', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'the High Court', (int) 5 => 'Magistrate', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Asst', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'the High Court', (int) 10 => 'Magistrate', (int) 11 => 'SessionJudge' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'two', (int) 1 => '25,000/-', (int) 2 => 'two', (int) 3 => '2', (int) 4 => '497', (int) 5 => '498', (int) 6 => '5', (int) 7 => '39', (int) 8 => '4.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2500/-', (int) 1 => '1945', (int) 2 => '1102' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Govindarajulu', (int) 1 => 'Madras', (int) 2 => 'Seoli' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sections 496' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'lawThese' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '371949', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/133280/code-of-criminal-procedure-1898-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898</a> - Sections 49, 92, 496, 497, 497(5), 498 and 561-A; <a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 420', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revn. Petn. Nos. 307 and 308 of 1954', 'appellant' => 'K. Bomanji Wookerji', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'K. Bomanji Wookerji Vs. State of Mysore', 'casenote' => ' - Section 20 & Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), Sections 11 & 12: [S.R. Bannurmath & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Penalty for disobedience - Disobedience of order passed by Karnataka Information Commission Maintainability of contempt petition - Held, Section 20 of RTI Act itself provides for remedy. Under Section 20 of RTI Act Commission is vested with power to penalize defaulting officer by imposing penalty up to Rs. 25,000/- and also recommend for disciplinary action against him. Thus Commission is empowered to enforce its own order. Remedy being available under RTI Act itself, contempt petition under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable. - 25,000/- and furnishing two sureties for a like sum. 2500/-.The requirements of this order were satisfied and the cases are still pending in the Magistrate's Court An application was filed on behalf of the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the petitioner was repeatedly absent on the dates;', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.K. Govindarajulu, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Asst. Adv. General', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1955-01-04', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two petitions in which the petitioner is the same and the point involved is common can be disposed of by a single order. Both relate to cases in which the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 420, I.P.C. which, according to the schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, is bailable. The petitioner applied for bail and the learned Magistrate granted it on condition of his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- and furnishing two sureties for a like sum. The amount- mentioned being felt to be excessive, the petitioner applied to the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, for reduction of the amount, and he reduced it to Rs. 2500/-. The requirements of this order were satisfied and the cases are still pending in the Magistrate's Court An application was filed on behalf of the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the petitioner was repeatedly absent on the dates; (SIC) hearing of the cases and the progress of the case was considerably retarded. The learned Judgment a summary order allowed the application and the correctness of this is impugned in this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The order of the learned Judge does not state the reasons lor it or the provision of law under which it purports to have been passed. Mr. Govindarajulu on behalf of the .petitioner re-presents that the order is unjust as the accused was not given opportunity to refute the allegations in the application and contends that it is in any event illegal and unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The provisions for grant and cancellation of bail are contained in Sections 496, 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 49(SIC) applies to cases of bailable offences; Section 49(SIC) to nonbailable offences for which punishment is other than death or transportation for life and under Section 498 power is given to the High Court or Court of Session to admit any person to bail or to reduce the bail required by the police officer or a Magistrate. In both cases against petitioner as already mentioned, the offences alleged are bailable and the order previously made by the learned Sessions Judge is stated to be under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since it only reduced the bail required by the Magistrate. There is no provision for cancellation of bail by the Sessions Judge when the offence alleged is bailable and cancellation is allowed in Sub-section (5) of Section 497 when the offences alleged are nonbailable and punishment for which is not death or transportation for life. The learned Asst. Advocate-General has fairly conceded that the order cannot be supported by any statutory provision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In -- 'Crown Prosecutor, Madras v. N.S.Krishnan', AIR 1945 Mad 250 (A) it was heldthat bail once granted cannot be cancelled bythe same Court under Section 497 and such an orderis permissible under Section 561-A of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. Section 561-A cannot be (SIC)vowed in the present case as It relates only to (SIC)powers of the High Court and not other Courts.To the same effect is the decision in -- 'Seoli (SIC)Rex1 : AIR1948All366 . If as stated in thepetition before the learned Sessions Judge theaccused by his absence is hindering the case frombeing proceeded with it is open to the trial Magistrate to apply the provisions of Section 92, CriminalP. C., as pointed out in 39 Mys HCR 1102 (C).The orders now passed by the learned SessionJudge cannot be regarded as warranted by lawThese are, therefore, set aside and the applications are allowed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Applications allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant96; AIR1955Mys96; 1955CriLJ973', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Mysore', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '371949' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'K. Bomanji Wookerji Vs. State of Mysore Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 420', (int) 1 => 'Section 49(SIC', (int) 2 => 'Section 498', (int) 3 => 'Section 498', (int) 4 => 'Section 497', (int) 5 => 'Section 497', (int) 6 => 'Section 561-A of the Code ofCriminal Procedure', (int) 7 => 'Section 92' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER1', (int) 1 => 'Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'Magistrate', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'the High Court', (int) 5 => 'Magistrate', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Asst', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'the High Court', (int) 10 => 'Magistrate', (int) 11 => 'SessionJudge' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'two', (int) 1 => '25,000/-', (int) 2 => 'two', (int) 3 => '2', (int) 4 => '497', (int) 5 => '498', (int) 6 => '5', (int) 7 => '39', (int) 8 => '4.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2500/-', (int) 1 => '1945', (int) 2 => '1102' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Govindarajulu', (int) 1 => 'Madras', (int) 2 => 'Seoli' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sections 496' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'lawThese' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '371949', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/133280/code-of-criminal-procedure-1898-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898</a> - Sections 49, 92, 496, 497, 497(5), 498 and 561-A; <a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 420', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revn. Petn. Nos. 307 and 308 of 1954', 'appellant' => 'K. Bomanji Wookerji', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'K. Bomanji Wookerji Vs. State of Mysore', 'casenote' => ' - Section 20 & Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), Sections 11 & 12: [S.R. Bannurmath & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Penalty for disobedience - Disobedience of order passed by Karnataka Information Commission Maintainability of contempt petition - Held, Section 20 of RTI Act itself provides for remedy. Under Section 20 of RTI Act Commission is vested with power to penalize defaulting officer by imposing penalty up to Rs. 25,000/- and also recommend for disciplinary action against him. Thus Commission is empowered to enforce its own order. Remedy being available under RTI Act itself, contempt petition under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable. - 25,000/- and furnishing two sureties for a like sum. 2500/-.The requirements of this order were satisfied and the cases are still pending in the Magistrate's Court An application was filed on behalf of the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the petitioner was repeatedly absent on the dates;', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.K. Govindarajulu, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Asst. Adv. General', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1955-01-04', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two petitions in which the petitioner is the same and the point involved is common can be disposed of by a single order. Both relate to cases in which the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 420, I.P.C. which, according to the schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, is bailable. The petitioner applied for bail and the learned Magistrate granted it on condition of his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- and furnishing two sureties for a like sum. The amount- mentioned being felt to be excessive, the petitioner applied to the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, for reduction of the amount, and he reduced it to Rs. 2500/-. The requirements of this order were satisfied and the cases are still pending in the Magistrate's Court An application was filed on behalf of the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the petitioner was repeatedly absent on the dates; (SIC) hearing of the cases and the progress of the case was considerably retarded. The learned Judgment a summary order allowed the application and the correctness of this is impugned in this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The order of the learned Judge does not state the reasons lor it or the provision of law under which it purports to have been passed. Mr. Govindarajulu on behalf of the .petitioner re-presents that the order is unjust as the accused was not given opportunity to refute the allegations in the application and contends that it is in any event illegal and unwarranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The provisions for grant and cancellation of bail are contained in Sections 496, 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 49(SIC) applies to cases of bailable offences; Section 49(SIC) to nonbailable offences for which punishment is other than death or transportation for life and under Section 498 power is given to the High Court or Court of Session to admit any person to bail or to reduce the bail required by the police officer or a Magistrate. In both cases against petitioner as already mentioned, the offences alleged are bailable and the order previously made by the learned Sessions Judge is stated to be under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since it only reduced the bail required by the Magistrate. There is no provision for cancellation of bail by the Sessions Judge when the offence alleged is bailable and cancellation is allowed in Sub-section (5) of Section 497 when the offences alleged are nonbailable and punishment for which is not death or transportation for life. The learned Asst. Advocate-General has fairly conceded that the order cannot be supported by any statutory provision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In -- 'Crown Prosecutor, Madras v. N.S.Krishnan', AIR 1945 Mad 250 (A) it was heldthat bail once granted cannot be cancelled bythe same Court under Section 497 and such an orderis permissible under Section 561-A of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. Section 561-A cannot be (SIC)vowed in the present case as It relates only to (SIC)powers of the High Court and not other Courts.To the same effect is the decision in -- 'Seoli (SIC)Rex1 : AIR1948All366 . If as stated in thepetition before the learned Sessions Judge theaccused by his absence is hindering the case frombeing proceeded with it is open to the trial Magistrate to apply the provisions of Section 92, CriminalP. C., as pointed out in 39 Mys HCR 1102 (C).The orders now passed by the learned SessionJudge cannot be regarded as warranted by lawThese are, therefore, set aside and the applications are allowed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Applications allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant96; AIR1955Mys96; 1955CriLJ973', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Mysore', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '371949' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 420, Section 49(SIC, Section 498, Section 498, Section 497, Section 497, Section 561-A of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, Section 92
ORG: ORDER1, Magistrate, Magistrate, Court, the High Court, Magistrate, Magistrate, Asst, Court, the High Court, Magistrate, SessionJudge
CARDINAL: two, 25,000/-, two, 2, 497, 498, 5, 39, 4.
DATE: 2500/-, 1945, 1102
PERSON: Govindarajulu, Madras, Seoli
GPE: Sections 496
NORP: lawThese