Gujarat Court November 1986 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.
Shantilal Mohanlal Shah Vs. Chandrakant Ambalal Thakkar and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-13-1986
Reported in: (1987)2GLR784
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The opponent No. 1 herein was convicted for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and in appeal filed by him against the said judgment and order of conviction, the applicant who had filed private complaint in the Court was not given notice. Therefore, he feels aggrieved. According to the applicant, he has a right to receive notice of hearing as provided under Section 385(1)(iii) of Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the question is, has the applicant (original complainant) any right whatever to receive such notice as to hearing of appeal2. Necessary facts, in brief, be stated first. The applicant filed a complaint in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, alleging that the opponent No. 1 (original accused) had committed offence of cheating and had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 12,000/-. It was alleged that the applicant and the accused were working as Directors of a Bank known as Apex Bank. Thus, the applicant and the accused were kn...
Ashokbhai Zinabhai Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-12-1986
Reported in: (1987)2GLR719
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. All these three Special Criminal Applications pose a common question as regards the power of appellate authority under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bombay Act No. XXII of 1951) to remand the matter back to the exteming authority for issuing fresh notice incorporating the places or the period during which the activities have taken place.2. In all these cases, it was alleged that the area of the acts committed by the externee and/or the period during which such acts were committed were not given in the notice issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. In short, it was the case of the externee that the notice issued under Section 59 is vague and as such, no externment order can be sustained on such type of vague notices. It has been held by our High Court and by the Supreme Court that failure to give the area of the operation or the period of such acts committed by the externee will be fatal to the externment order and on that basis, ...
Union of India Vs. Abdul Sattar Abdul Gani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-11-1986
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC202; 1988(15)LC254(Gujarat); 1988(37)ELT541(Guj); (1987)2GLR822
Ravani, J.1. The respondent, original accused No. 3 in Criminal Case No. 5499/1974 was charged for offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was the case of the prosecution that he stored contraband goods and acted as a broker of one Noora Kara (i.e., original accused No. 2, who, according to the prosecution, was the owner of the goods). The contraband goods seized were foreign fabrics and foreign made cosmetics worth Rs. 1,65,311. The respondent/accused was tried for the offence stated above along with other accused and he was ordered to be convicted for offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 and in default of payment of fine it was further ordered that he should undergo R.I. for six months more. This judgment of conviction and sentence was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar on October 7, 1978. 2. The respondent/accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 81979 in the S...
Babubhai Jashbhai Patel and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-11-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Guj1; (1987)2GLR710
ORDER1. Mahatma Gandhlji commands universal respect. A statue of that great personality is to be installed in Gandhinagar, the capital city named after that great personality with a view to respect and perpetuate his memory. Unfortunately, this has created some controversy.2. T he petitioner No. I am a Gandhian of repute and have been a former Chief Minister of this State. The petitioner No. 2, Gandhi Peace Foundation, as its name suggests, has abundant respect for Gandhiji and his way of life. They are aggrieved by a photograph, published in a newspaper, of the statue to be installed.3. According to the petitioners, this statue depicts the picture of a man of totally downcast and depressed being and does not present the exact visual representation in the mind of public at large. It is submitted that if any caricature is sought to be passed off as the emblem of Gandhiji, it would be a matter of disgrace and shame and it would tantamount to dishonouring that gigantic personality who 'by...
Ramesh Ramkishan Rohila Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)2GLR746
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. Rule. Mr. S.R. Divetia, learned A.P.R appears and waives service of Rule.2. The petitioner herein was granted bail by this Court (Coram: D.C. Gheewala. J.) on 26-9-1984 with certain conditions imposed on the petitioner. By the present application, the petitioner seeks modification of those conditions viz. that the petitioner will not leave the local limits of Bhuj District without previously intimating the Police Station Officer at Lakhpat and in no case the petitioner shall leave local limits of Gujarat State without written permission of this Court.3. Mr. C.H. Vora. learned Counsel for the petitioner states that more than two and half years have elapsed and the prosecution has not filed the charge-sheet. In the circumstances, according to Mr. Vora, the conditions imposed work considerable hardship on the petitioner. The petitioner is a Customs Officer posted at Lakhpat in Kutch District. He belongs to Haryana State. Hence, according to Mr. Vora, in view of enormous...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›