Gujarat Court April 1954 Judgments
Soni Bachubhai Jinabhai and ors. Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ74
Baxi, J.(1) This judgment disposes of the above three appeals against the appellants' conviction by the Sessions Judge, Gohilwad Division, Under Section 498, Penal Code, and sentence of nine months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default three months' rigorous imprisonment.(2) The appellants were committed by the First Class Magistrate, Bhavnagar, on charges Under Sections 366 and 498, Penal Code, and tried by the Sessions Judge on that commitment and the point of law, upon which the appeals turn, is wheher the absence of a proper complaint from the husband Under Section 199, Criminal P. C, does not vitiate the entire proceedings, including their trial before the Sessions Judge.(3) The proceedings were started by Madhavsinh Jivansinh, who filed a complaint before the Magistrate against the three appellants and Bai Hira Kanji, charging the appellants Under Section 366, Penal Code, and abetment thereof and charging Hira Under Section 494, Penal Code, Hira's hus...
Tag this Judgment!Kanbi Govinda Hira and ors. Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ77
Baxi, J.(1) This appeal arises out of a fight which took place between the appellants and others on the one hand and Kana Bhima and others on the other over a certain vada in the course of which the appellants received several injuries, Kana lost his life, Kana's son Parbat's head was fracturec1 and Kana's brother Same his daughter Raliat and his other son Jiva received simple hurts.(2) The three appellants are brothers. The vada in question was purchased by appellant 1 from the Girasdar joint owners of the village and the appellant was put in possession of the vada on 1-4-51. In March 1952 he fenced ifc off by a hedge. In the meantime one of the shareholders purported to sell the Vada to Kana. Kana attempted to obtain possession of the Vada and there was an exchange of notices with his vendor but ultimately in July 1952 he was asked by his vendor to take back the consideration paid by him as he could not sell the Vada without the concurrence of his co-sharers.It is not in dispute that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›