Gujarat Court February 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.
State of Gujarat Vs. Saubhabjyachand Kanji and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR138
V.B. Raju, J.1. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mandvi-Kutch took cognizance on a police report of an offence under Rule 125(9) of the Defence of India Rules. The learned Sessions Judge of Kutch has made a reference saying that the offence is a non-cognizable offence and no cognisance should be taken by the Magistrate upon a police report. Under Section 190(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate can take cognisance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer; and (c) upon such information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge or suspicion, that such offence has been committed. When a Magistrate can take the cognisance of an offence even on suspicion, it is not open to any one to say that the Magistrate erred in taking cognisance of a particular offence. In this case, there was a report of the police. That itsel...
Chhotu Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj115; 1967CriLJ765; (1966)GLR1015
(1 to 9) * * * * * * * *(10) Mr. Sompura, then contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not complied with the provisions contained in Ss. 356(2) and 361 of the Criminal procedure Code. His grievance is that the evidence of Dr. Thomas Ex. 72 has been recorded only in English.; the accused knew only Gujarati and since it does not appear about the translation of his evidence having been explained to him in Gujarati, the trial according to him, is vitiated in law. That according to him, would be a breach of Cl., (2) of s. 356 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The other objection taken by him is that as contemplated in Cl.( 1) of S. 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code, whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, and he is present in person, it shall be interpreted to him in open Court in a language understood by him. That having not been done, the learned Sessions Judge had committed an error of law and such an error is not curable under S. 537 of the Crimi...
Suraj Mohan Babu Mishra Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj126; 1967CriLJ767; (1966)GLR974
ORDER(1) On 27-12-65 on Suraj Mohan Banu Mishra of Billimora made an application in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Navsari, stating inter alia about one Baburao Raghojirao having been arrested by the Navsari police in respect of the offences under Ss. 66(b) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition act, and that a motor truck No. GTA 3093 belonging to him has been seized at that time by the police. He has then stated that his income for livelihood depends upon the use of his motor truck. It has been lying idle at the Police Station and for want f use etc. It would get spoiled. So saying he has prayed for the return of the said truck to him and for which he was prepared to give suitable security as demanded by the Court. That application was heard on 30-12-65 and it came to be rejected by the learned magistrate saying that no report from, the police under S. 523, Criminal procedure Code, was received by him in that respect, and that, therefore, no order under s. 523 of the Crim...
Pari Kantilal Lalbhai Vs. Devchand Nathalal Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR1123
V.B. Raju, J.1. This second appeal is by the original plaintiff. His suit to recover Rs. 2,000/- with interest from the defendant, which he stated he had given in cash to the defendant on 2-11-1965 was dismissed by both the Courts below. The finding of both the Courts is that Ex. 36 on which the plaintiff sues and on which he relies is admitted by the defendant. The defendant in his written statement and evidence has admitted the contents of Ex. 36. He admits having signed Ex. 36. He also states in his deposition, Ex. 78, that he took Rs. 2,000/- in cash on 2nd November 1955 from Sharafi account of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint was that he gave Rs. 2,000/- to the defendant on 2nd November, 1955. All these allegations in the plaint are, therefore admitted both in his evidence and in the written statement by the defendant. On this fact alone, the plaintiff's suit should have been decreed in full. But the learned Judge proceeded to consider what he called the theo...
Natverlal Jayshanker Trivedi Vs. E.F. Deboo and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR574
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 and some other articles of the Constitution of India and also under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Petitioner is Natverlal Jayshanker Trivedi. The first respondent is the Commissioner of Police and the second respondent is the State of Gujarat. The first respondent passed an order on 8th September 1965 under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, (hereafter called 'the Rules') in which he stated that he was satisfied that, with a view to preventing petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain matters, it was necessary to make an order to detain him and further directed that petitioner be detained in Rajkot District Prison (Special). The matters in regard to which petitioner was directed to be detained were (1) defence of India; (2) public safety; (3) maintenance of public order; and (4) maintenance of peaceful conditions in the city of Ahmedabad. Petitioner challenges the detention order and his det...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›