Gujarat Court October 1966 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The State of Gujarat Vs. Bhimji Manji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Guj23; 1968CriLJ156; (1968)0GLR201
Shah, J.1. This is a group of seventeen criminal revision applications in which two identical questions of some importance have been raised and they will conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. The questions that fall for our consideration are: (i) whether an offence for contravention of any provision of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and made punishable under clause (a) of sub rule (9) of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, hereinafter called 'the Rules', is a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable one; and (ii) whether the Court can take cognizance of any alleged contravention of the Rules or of any order made under the Rules on a police report submitted on an unauthorized investigation.(2) It appears that the opponents in the first-listed sixteen different revision applications were charge-sheeted in different criminal Courts of the District of Kutch for alleged contravention of a provision of Rule 125 or of an order made thereunder and punishable u...
Nathusing Vridhsingh Vs. Vasantlal R. Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Guj216; 1968CriLJ1171; (1967)GLR496
(1) This revision application is directed against an order passed on 30-10-1964 by Mr. C. H. Vasavada, City Magistrate, Seventh Court, Ahmedabad, whereby the complaint given by the petitioner against opponent No. 1 in respect of offences under Sections 420, 406, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be dismissed under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code.(2) The complaint was filed on 26-8-1964 making various allegations against the oppoments in respect of their having committed offences under Sections 406, 465, 468 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate passed an order on that very day for having an inquiry made by the Inspector of Police, Karanj Police Station, under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was directed to expeditiously inquire in the matter and attach the papers alleged to have been taken from the complainant. The report was called for within a fortnight from the date of the order. Then o...
Abdul HusseIn Tayabali Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR856
N.M. Miabhoy, C.J.1. These sixteen petitions arise from a single set of notifications, published by the State of Gujarat under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter called the Act). Though, petitioners are different, respondents in all the petitions are common. Therefore, with the consent of both the sides, the petitions were set down for hearing together and a common argument was heard in respect of all the petitions. This judgment will dispose of all the sixteen petitions.2. Petitioners are owners of their respective lands situated in the village Ranoli, Taluka Baroda, District Baroda. There are three respondents in each of the petitions. One of the respondents is the State of Gujarat (hereafter called the State), which purports to exercise the power of the eminent domain. One D. P. Dave is another respondent. He has been joined in his capacity as the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 2, Baroda. Though he occupied this position on the date of the filing of the pe...
The State of Gujarat Vs. Thakorbhai Sukhabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Guj15; 1968CriLJ59; (1967)GLR164
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed on 29-1-1965 by Mr. R I. Lallaje, Judicial Magistrate. First Class, gandevi, in Criminal Case No. 1027 of 1964 whereby the accused-respondent came to be acquitted under section 245 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the offences punishable under section 66(b) and 85(1)(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The Criminal Appeals Nos. 425 to 428 of 1965 are similar to the present one and they involve the same questions which we are required to consider in this appeal. Al of them are, therefore, heard together, and a common judgment is recorded in this appeal. (2) The accused in all these cases were charge-sheeted by the police on 19-10-1964 in respect of their having been found drunk and behaving in a disorderly manner on a public road, under the influence of drink so as to be liable for offences punishable under section 66(b) and 85(1)(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The offences by the accused in all the cases he alleged to have been commit...
State of Gujarat Vs. Bai Radha W/O. Natwarlal Ramshanker and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1966
Reported in: (1968)9GLR278
N.G. Shelat, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed on 9-1-1965 by Mr. R.N. Desai, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Narol, in Criminal Case No. 380 of 1964 whereby the respondents-original accused Nos. 1 and 3, and one Natverlal Ramshanker-original accused No. 2 came to be acquitted in respect of the charges levelled against them under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.'2. Several residents of Saijpur Dhanushdhar Society situated in the village of Saijpur Bogha sent an application Ex. 7 to the Commissioner of Police, City of Ahmedabad, stating inter alia that one Bai Radha living in that Society brings girls from outside and runs a brothel and she has been maintaining herself on such income. When she was told not to invite people of immoral character to her house, she got excited and abused them. It is that way that they requested the Commissioner of Police to look into the matter and do ...
State of Gujarat Vs. Kanbi Nanji Kanji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj228; 1967CriLJ1328
(1) This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 247 of the Cri. Pro. Code. The accused was charged for an offence under Section 24 of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951, for committing breach of Rule 15 of the Bombay Cement Control Order, 1959. The learned Magistrate passed an order ordering that 'the complainant is absent and so accused is acquitted under Section 247 Cr. P.C.'. Section 247, Cr. P.C. reads as follows:-'247. If the summons has been issued on complaint, and upon the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall notwithstanding anything herein before contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reasons he thinks proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day: Provided that where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the ...
Barot Jaganath Maganlal and anr. Vs. Parshottamdas Nathubhat Brahmbhat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR9
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The dispute in this petition concerns the validity of the election from Ward No. 7 to the Mehsana Borough Municipality. The own of Mehsana is a Municipal Borough within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The general municipal election to the Mehsana Borough Municipality was due to be held in September 1965 and the Collector of Mehsana in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Rule 7(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Election Rules, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) issued a notice dated 18th June 1965 fixing the various stages of the election. The general election was fixed on 12th September 1965 and the dates for the nomination of the candidates were 18th and 19th August 1965, the date for scrutiny of the nomination papers was 21st August 1965, the last date for withdrawal of candidature was 23rd August 1965 and the date for publishing the list of validly nominated ...
Motibhai Garbadbhai Vs. F.N. Rana and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj280; (1967)0GLR333
(1) This petition is directed against an order passed by the Commissioner, Baroda Division, under Section 142 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, by which the Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector staying the operation of two resolutions dated 1st November 1961 passed by the Gram Panchayat of Lengasthali under the same Section of the Act. The petitioner is a resident of village Lengasthali, Taluka Dabhoi, District Baroda, and he owns a house abutting on the eastern side of a public road running North-South in the said village. Respondent No. 4 is also a resident of the said village and his house abuts on the western side of the public road. It appears that sometime in 1960 the fourth respondent erected four wooden posts on a portion of the public road admeasuring 20 feet North-South and 9 feet East-West immediately in front of his house and started storing fuel and other articles on the enclosed portion of the public road. The petitioner thereupon complained to the ...
Babulal Chhotalal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-03-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Guj240; 1968CriLJ1274
(1) The appellant was convicted under Section 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and given separate sentences. It was ordered that the substantive sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently.(2) The first argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code includes the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore separate sentences should not be given, and reliance was placed on Ragho Prasad v. Emperor, AIR 1939 Pat 388, which relied on Champa v. Emperor, AIR 1928 Pat 326.(3) Section 235 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows:--'235 (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. (2) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offence...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›