Gujarat Court June 1966 Judgments
Kishanchand Korumal and ors. Vs. Inspector-general of Police, (imdadal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-1966
Reported in: (1966)0GLR1065; (1966)IILLJ768Guj
Mehta, J.1. These three special civil applications filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution raise the same questions as to the scope of the revisional powers of the Inspector-General of Police under the Bombay police (Punishments and Appeals) Rules, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the rules, and as to the validity of these rules. We have, therefore, heard all these applications together and are disposing them of by this common judgment. 2. All the three petitioners were, at the relevant time, serving as head constables in the Kaira district. Disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against them. They were chargesheeted and after a proper inquiry and the show-cause notice which had been issued, they were punished by the order of the District Superintendent of Police at Kaira and were reverted to the post of a constable for the period stated in the orders passed against them for the misconduct proved against them in their respective charges. Against the said order, the peti...
Tag this Judgment!ibrahim Chittubhai Vs. A.G. Pancholi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Guj272; (1968)9GLR447
ORDER(1) This revision Application raises an interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of section 28 of Provincial Insolvency Act and section 47 of the Registration Act. The question is as to what is the effect of an order of adjudication on a transfer of immovable property in respect of which the instrument of transfer is executed between the date of the presentation of the petition and the date of order of adjudication but the registration has taken place subsequent to the date of the order of adjudication. The facts giving rise to the question are very few and may be briefly stated as follows. On 17th February, 1956, a creditor named Gulamhusain Farukbhai presented a petition for adjudicating Usmanmiya Mahamadmiya and his wife Bai Mumtaz Kunvarba as insolvent tin the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda, During the pendency of the petition Bai Mumtaz Kunvarba executed in favour of the original opponent on 9th April 1956 an instrument of transfer of cert...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Ambalal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1429
V.B. Raju, J.1. The appellant, who was original Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 37 of 1964 was convicted under Sections 409 and 477A of the Penal Code. The prosecution case was that he was the Secretary of the Kotarpur Gram Panchayat. The charge is that he and Accused No. 2, who was the Bar Panch of the said Gram Panchayat were entrusted with the work of maintaining accounts and receiving, collecting and disbursing the amount of the said Gram Pan-chayat. The charge further proceeds to say that there was a common intention to misappropriate the amount received by the accused. The charge further proceeds to say that a criminal breach of trust was committed in respect of Rs. 610.75 Paise. The charge does not say that there are four items making up Bs. 610.75 Paise. Nor does the charge mention to which of the accused and by whom moneys were entrusted. Such a charge would be entirely unsatisfactory. The charge does not say that there was a joint entrustment of the amount in question. Whe...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Narendra Dhirubhai Desai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-1966
Reported in: (1968)9GLR261
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. One Dhirubhai was the manager and Karta of his joint family which consisted of himself and his two sons, Kirtikumar and Narendra. The said joint family owned 64 power looms and carried on business of manufacturing art silk cloth on the said power looms in the name of Nalini Silk Mills at Surat. There was no excise duty on art silk fabric upto 28th February 1954 but with effect from that date, Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1954, provided for levy of excise duty on art silk fabric by introducing Item No. 12A in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the following terms:12A. Rayon or Artificial Silk fabrics.'Rayon or Artificial silk fabrics' include all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from the product commercially known as rayon or artificial silk, but do not include any fabric-xx xx xx xx(v) produced or manufactured in one or more factories by or on behalf of the same person in which less than twenty-fi...
Tag this Judgment!Narandas Jechand Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-08-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR832
V.B. Raju, J.1. The appellant was convicted of the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The oral evidence led on behalf of the complainant, namely the evidence of Somalal was not relied on by the learned Magistrate. But he relied on two statements Articles C, and D. Article D was a statement made by the co-accused, namely, accused No. 2. The learned Magistrate thought that Article D was admissible under Section 32(5) of the Indian Evidence Act, because the co-accused was incapable of giving evidence in view of the provisions of Section 342 of the Cri. Pro. Code. Section 32 of the Evidence Act does not refer to such incapacity. The statement does not say that the mother, who made the statement, had special knowledge of the marriage.2. The view taken by the learned Magistrate in considering Article D is, therefore, incorrect. Article D must be excluded from consideration. Article C is an affidavit of the woman Bai Babi. It is an affidavit, which admits the marria...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Mahmad Kasam and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-03-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj169; 1967CriLJ886; (1966)GLR795
ORDER(1) The opponents were charge-sheeted by the Police in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad, for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that they had formed common intention to cause the death of the deceased and in pursuance of such common intention, opponent No. 1 had given an axe blow on the head of the deceased and thereby caused the death of the deceased. The learned Judicial Magistrate on a consideration of the police papers thought that the facts disclosed an offence under Section 304, Part II and not under Section 302 and he accordingly framed a charge under that Section and committed the opponents to stand their trial before the Court of session. When the case came up for hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, an application was made on behalf of the prosecution that the charge framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was erroneous and it should, therefore be altered to one under S....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›