Gujarat Court December 1963 Judgments
State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. Hiralal Devji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj261; 1964CriLJ676; (1964)0GLR255
Divan, J. 1-54. (After stating facts and discussing the evidence, the judgment continues as under) :It is no doubt true that these discrepancies and divergences between the evidence given by Vaihunthlal in Court and his first information report do appear on record. However, the attention of Vaikunthlal was not drawn to any of these discrepancies or divergences or contradictions at the time when he was giving evidence before the trial Court. Therefore, it becomes necessary to examine as to what is the correct legal position regarding the use to be made of the first information report under such circumstances.55. It is well settled law that the first information report recorded tinder Section 154 Cr. P. C. by an officer in charge of a Police Station is not substantive evidence but is a previous statement in writing of the maker of that document and can be used to corroborate or contradict the maker of lhat first information report. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that a w...
Tag this Judgment!Mathurdas Govinddas Vs. G.N. Gadgil, Income-tax Officer, Special Inves ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-1963
Reported in: (1964)0GLR746; [1965]56ITR621(Guj)
Bhagwati, J. 1. These petitions involve common questions of law and are founded on the same facts and it could, therefore, be convenient to dispose them of by a single judgment. Certain notices were issued against the petitioners by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ahmedabad, on 31st January, 1962, under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The reason for issuing the notices was that, according to Income-tax Officer, the following income of each petitioner had escaped assessment in the assessment year mentioned against the respective incomes by reason of the omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for such assessment year : Rs. 41,000 in the assessmentyear 1943-44.)Each of the petitioners in )Special Civil Applications ) Rs. 91,575 in the assessmentNos. 370, 371 and 372 1962. ) year 1946-47.Rs. 36,535 in the assessmentyear 1950-51) Rs. 84,520 in the assessmentThe petitioner in Special ) year 1943-44.Civil Applicati...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Chandulal Bhikhlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Guj83; 1965CriLJ440; (1965)0GLR485
(1) This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent under S. 171F, I.P>Code, for having personated at an election in that he applied for a ballot paper under a false name of Mansukhlal Bhikhalal, whereas his real name is Chandulal Bhikalal. The learned Magistrate acquitted him relying upon State of Orissa v. Gokul Barik : AIR1959Ori97 on the ground that he had only gone to the first polling officer, who verifies the name and not to the third polling officer, who actually issues a ballot paper. The view taken is that he had not gone to the third polling officer who issues a ballot paper and therefore it cannot be said that he had applied for a voting paper within the meaning of S. 171D of the Indian Penal Code. That the accused gave his name as Mansukhlal Bhikhalal is proved by the evidence of prosecution witness Chhaganlal who was a polling officer on duty. it is also proved that his name is not Mansukhlal Bhikhlal but his name is Chandulal Bhikhalal. So, the mai...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Mangalbhai Nathabhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, Revenue and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj82; (1964)0GLR329
Shelat, C.J.1. This petition is for a mandamus or any other appropriate writ for quashing the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, XXXI of 1962, and for restraining the respondents from enforcing them or taking any further proceedings thereunder, for declaring that the amendments inserted by the aforesaid Act XXXI of 1962 in Sections 40 and 41 of the principal Act, are ultra vires the Constitution and restraining the respondents from enforcing she provisions of the said amendment Act. The petition is by ten individuals holding different lands in respect of which separate acquisition proceedings have been taken, but in view of the fact that the learned Advocate-General expressly stated that the did not wish to raise any contention as regards the maintain ability of such a joint petition, it does not become necessary for us to deal with any question as to the maintainability of the present p...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Martandrai Gangashankar Shastry and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1963
Reported in: (1965)6GLR497
V.B. Raju, J.1. This appeal is against an acquittal. The respondents were charged with having held a public meeting within 24 hours from the date of election in contravention of Section 126 of the Representation of Peoples Act. The learned Magistrate passed an order of acquittal on the ground that there were discrepancies between the evidence of a police officer and the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution.2. When a charge of holding a public meeting in contravention of the Act is framed against an accused person the prosecution must prove three things: (1) that the accused held a public meeting (2) that the meeting was a public one and (3) that what was held was a meeting. Holding a public meeting is different from attending it.3. In order to prove what was held is a meeting the prosecution must adduce satisfactory evidence. If thousands of persons assemble at the Chowpaty Beach at random it cannot be called a meeting. If taking advantage of the large number of persons pr...
Tag this Judgment!Prahladbhai Sataramdas Vs. Ashabai Trikamji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1963
Reported in: (1964)5GLR417
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This is a revision petition made under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code and it is directed against an order, dated 13th December 1962, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajkot, in Civil Suit No. 601 of 1961 whilst exercising the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the Hindu Marriage Act (No. XXV of 1955) (hereafter called 'the Act'). Two questions fall to be decided in this petition The first, which is raised by Mr. Vyas, the learned advocate for the opponent, is (i) whether a revision petition lies to this Court and the second, raised by Mr. Shukla, the learned advocate for the petitioner (ii) whether the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) had jurisdiction to make the impugned order and if so, whether the order suffers from the infirmity that it was illegally or irregularly made in the exercise of that jurisdiction.2. The facts are as follows:Petitioner is the husband and opponent is the wife. The parties were married on or about 3rd of Decembe...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpatsinh Kalyansinh Thakore and ors. Vs. Shantilal Kalyansinh Thakor ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-1963
Reported in: (1965)6GLR402
M.U. Shah, J.1. This is a plaintiffs revision application against the order of the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Godhra in Regular Civil Suit No. 119 of 1961 ordering the plaintiff to put the correct valuation of the relief sought. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for the administration of the estate of the deceased Chhotalal alias Chhotusinh Kalyansinh and for accounts of the same and for other incidental reliefs. This suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Godhra.2. The plaintiffs stated in the plaint that it was a suit for administration i.e. for ascertaining the property and administration after taking accounts and valued the suit at Rs. 200/for court-fees and pleaders fees and court-fee stamp of Rs. 20 was accordingly affixed. The opponent filed an application Exhibit 41 by which he contended that the suit was wrongly valued and prayed for an inquiry under Section 8 of the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959.3. The learned Civil Judge in para 4 of his j...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Amratlal Shodhan Vs. F.N. Rana and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Guj80; (1963)GLR405; (1964)0GLR481
MIABHOY, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner Shri Jayantilal Amratlal Shodhan prays for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order for setting aside two notifications under Section 4 and 6 and proceedings under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (I of 1894) (hereinafter called the ('Act') and for directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 not to take action under those notifications and proceedings. Alternatively, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorarl or any other writ, direction or order for quashing the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act andfor setting aside the notification under Section 6 ofthe Act.2. The petitioner is the owner of final plot No, 686 of the Ellisbridge Town Planning Scheme No.3, situated' in Moje Chhadavad, City. Taluka, Ahmedabad, admeasuring 7018' square yards. The respondent No. 1 was, at the relevant time, the Commissioner, Baroda Division, Baroda. He issue...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Babulal and Bros. Vs. H.C. Patel, Sales Tax Officer, Surat an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-1963
Reported in: [1965]16STC973(Guj)
Bhagwati, J. 1. This petition raises an interesting question relating to the construction of section 12A(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. 1946, and in the event of the construction contended for on behalf of the State being accepted, challenges the validity of the section the ground of infraction of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. In order to appreciate the various questions arising in the petition, it is necessary to briefly recapitulate the facts on which the petition is founded. The facts are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows :- 2. The petitioners are dealers carrying on business in art silk, cotton and handloom cloth and at all material times they held a certificate of registration under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). During the period 26th January, 1950, to 31st March, 1950, which we shall for the sake of convenience describe as the first period, the petitioners effected various sales outsi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›