Gujarat Court May 1967 Judgments
Manilal R. Pandya Vs. Chimanlal Parshottamdas and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj80
Vakil, J.(1) This Criminal Revision Application arises out of the Order passed by the City Magistrate, 6th Court, Ahmedabad discharging the opponent No. 1 of the charge of having committed an offence under section (16) (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the Gujarat Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1961 were not valid as they were not previously published as required by section 24 of the said Act. The learned Magistrate held that it is an admitted position that the draft rules were not published by the Government of Gujarat and the fact of the draft rules having been published by the Government of Bombay, before bifurcation, cannot be considered to be a compliance with the requirement of prior publication. It was necessary for the Government of Gujarat to publish the draft rules before publishing the final rules. The learned Magistrate relied on the decision of this Court by Raju J. In Criminal Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Brijchandra Gordhandas Jagirdar Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1967
Reported in: (1967)8GLR911
P.N. Bhagwati, J. 1. The short question which arises for determination in this petition is as to the true nature and character of inam granted by the British Government to the ancestors of the petitioner on 25th April 1806. The original Sanad under which the inam was granted was in Urdu but an English translation of the Sanad was produced before the District Deputy Collector and it was accepted as a correct translation by both sides at all stages of the proceeding including the appeal before the Revenue Tribunal. Before us, Mr. B.R. Sompura on behalf of the State, attempted to argue that this translation was incorrect in a material particular and produced before us another translation which was an official translation and which too was on the record of case but we do not think we can refer to that translation as that was not the translation relied upon before the Revenue Tribunal and the case before the Revenue Tribunal, as before the District Deputy Collector, proceeded on the commonl...
Tag this Judgment!ibrahimbhai Karimbhai Chhipa (Deceased, by His Heirs and Legal Represe ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1967
Reported in: (1967)0GLR793; (1969)IILLJ67Guj
Desai, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, One Ibrahimbhai Karimbhai Chhipa was the original petitioner. He was a member of the Police Service of the State. He was a appointed as sub-insepector of police on 1 January 1939 in the former State of Bombay. He was promoted as inspector of police on 8 November 1953 and was confirmed in that post on 19 August 1960. He was listed in the selection list of the police officers fit for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police by the Selection Board. He was appointed as an officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police by the Government of Gujarat on 3 May 1961. He took charges of the Sub-divisional Police Office, Morbi subdivision, Rajkot, on 28 May 1961. 2. During the course of his duties, he camped at Vankaner on 5 August 1961 in connexion with an investigation of a murder case. One Lalji Hirji complained to him that his nephew, a boy named Jayantilal, was taken to Vankaner City Police Station as suspect in a ca...
Tag this Judgment!SabuddIn Sheikh Mansur Vs. J.S. Thakar and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Guj1; 1969CriLJ50; (1968)GLR142
Miabhoy, C.J.1. The following two points have been referred to this Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of two of us :--(1) What is the correct interpretation of the expression 'the Sub Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf' as used in Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act; and(2) Is respondent No. 1 specially appointed within the meaning of the above expression by the notification No. 6304/6 Home Department dated 1st August 1961, of the State of Bombay?The main point which arises for determination in this case is a short one. It is, what is the correct interpretation of the word 'specially' used in Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereafter: called the Act).2. In this case, petitioner challenges the externment order, Exhibit 'F', dated 21st August 1966, passed by one Shri Thakar, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baroda. The order was passed under Section 56 of the Act, directing petitioner to remove himself outside the district of Bar...
Tag this Judgment!Parvatiben Wd/O. Joitaram Sakarchand and anr. Vs. Himatlal Hiralal and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1967
Reported in: (1967)8GLR904
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. In suit No. 201 of 1954 filed by the plaintiffs against four defendants, a consent decree was passed, the material terms of which as translated in English were as follows: Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay Rs. 17, 551/- to the plaintiffs with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the decree and the immovable property belonging to the fourth defendant and particularly described in paragraph 7 of the consent terms shall stand charged for payment of the decretal amount and furthermore the fourth defendant shall also be personally liable for payment of the decretal amount; the plaintiffs in execution of this decree shall be at liberty to realise the decretal amount from any property of any of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and the plaintiffs shall have option to proceed against them according to such priority as they choose. The consent decree provided for payment of the decretal amount by certain instalments but it appears that default was...
Tag this Judgment!ibrahimbhai Karimbhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj202
(1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. One Ibrahimbhal Karimbhai Chhippa was the original petitioner. He was a member of the Police Service of the State. He was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police on January 1, 1939, in the former State of Bombay. He was promoted as Inspector of Police on November 8, 1953 and was confirmed in that post on August 19, 1960. He was listed in the selection list of the Police Officers fit for promotion as Deputy superintendent of Police by the Selection Board. He was appointed as an officating Deputy Superintendent of Police by the Government of Gujarat on May 3, 1961. He took charge from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Morbi Sub-Division, Rajakot, on May 28, 1961.(2) During the course of his duties, he camped at Vankaner on August 5, 1961 in connection with an investigation of a murder case. One Lalji Hirji complained to him that his nephew, a boy named Jayantilal, was taken to Vankaner City Police Station as a suspect in...
Tag this Judgment!Joitaram Sakarchand and anr. Vs. Himatlal Hiralal and Co. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj156; (1967)GLR904
Bhagwati, J. (1) In suit No. 201 of 1954 filed by the plaintiffs against four defendants, a consent decree was passed, the material terms of which as translated in English were as follows' Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay Rs. 17,551 to the plaintiffs with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the decree and the immovable property belonging to the fourth defendants and particularly described in paragraph 7 of the consent terms shall stand charged for payment of the decretal amount and furthermore the fourth defendant shall also be personally liable for payment of the decretal amount; the plaintiffs in execution of this decree shall be at liberty to realise the decretal amount from any property of any of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and the plaintiffs shall have option to proceed against them to according to such priority as they choose. The consent decree provided for payment of the decretal amount by certain installments but it appears that default was ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Ali BIn Rajak
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR1
A.D. Desai, J. 1. I regret my inability to agree on the construction of Section 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts have been stated in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice and I need not restate them. 2. The reference has been made on the ground that the decision in the case of Noor Mohamad Cassum v. Kaikhosru Afaneckjee 4 Bom. L.R. 268, to the effect that sanction under Section 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code for an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code is not necessary in respect of a use made of the document outside the Court, is not approved in the subsequent decisions in Emperor v. Sanjiv Ratnappa 34 Bom. L.R. 1090 and Emperor v. Rachappa Yellappa 38 Bom. L.R. 440. The relevant part of Section 195 is as under: 195. (1) No Court shall take cognizance (a) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom h...
Tag this Judgment!Jethalal Nanalal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj163; 1968CriLJ1065
Vakil, J.1.This reference has come to us under the following facts:-(2) Criminal Appeal No. 623 of 1965 came up for hearing before Mr. Justice M. U. Shah. The appellant of the said appeal was convicted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') by the City Magistrate, 7th Court, Ahmedabad for contravention of clause 4 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956 (hereafter referred to as 'the Order') for having acquired 211 new corrugated iron sheets and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. On behalf of the appellant, the conviction was challenged in appeal on the ground that unless the prosecution proves that the appellant-accused had acquired the iron sheets from a producer, ac stock holder or a person holding stocks of iron and steel, presumption under Section 14 of the Act cannot be attracted. Differentl...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Meramwala Bhayawala Vs. Bai Shri Amarba Jethsurbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR609
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. Prior to 15th August 1947 Khari-Bagasara was a Fifth Class jurisdiction Estate under the paramountcy of the British Crown. One Ram Mulu was the Chief of the Estate until sometime in 1943 when he died. He left him surviving two sons, namely, Bhayavala and Valeravala. The rule of primogeniture governed the succession at the Estate at the material time and, therefore, Bhayavala who was the eldest son succeeded to the Estate; Valeravala, the younger son being given village Khari by way of Kapal Giras, that is, maintenance, during the life time of Bhayavala. Bhayavala was accordingly the Chief of the Estate on 15th August 1947 when the Indian Independence Act, 1947, came into force. By virtue of Section 7 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the suzerainty of the British Crown over the Indian States lapsed and the Indian States were released from their obligations to the British Crown and attained the status of truly independent sovereign State possessing and enjoying n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »