Gujarat Court February 1990 Judgments
Smt. Savitaben W/O Shantilal C. Shroff and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)2GLR792
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have brought in challenge the order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Gujarat in exercise of the power under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('Urban Land Act' for short). A few facts leading to this petition required to be noted at the outset.2. Four petitioners claim to be co-owners of immovable property situated at the junction of Kasturba Road and Shroff Road known as 'Mangal Niwas' in Rajkot City. The said property is comprised of S. No. 870/1. There are structures on the road flanked by open land appurtenant to this structure. The said property originally comprised of 9757 sq. yds. It was purchased by petitioner No. 1 who is since deceased and who is represented by his widow, jointly with his mother Smt. Manglagauri under an indenture dated 25-1-1935. Original petitioner No. 1 had one-half share therein and his mother Manglagau...
Tag this Judgment!Vaghari Jenabhai Asabhai Vs. Vaghari Jesangbhai Ugrabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ881; (1991)1GLR102
ORDERK.J. Vaidya, J.1. (i) What is the correct import of the phrase 'release him after due admonition' appearing in Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as well as consequential aspect thereto; viz. (ii) in what manner the said empowering provision pertaining to 'admonition' is to be exercised and executed by the concerned court and or to put it other way -- whether a mere recital in the judgment, to quote, 'All the accused are hereby released after due admonition Under Section 3 of the Probation of Offender's Act, 1958' (without there being any material on the record to indicate that an act of administering admonition to the accused was actually performed by the court) by itself can be said to be a truly sufficient compliance with relevant provisions of the said Act are the questions which arise for consideration in this Criminal Revision Application.2. The facts in so far as they are relevant for this Revision are that one Vaghari Jhenabhai Atabhai lodged a complaint bef...
Tag this Judgment!Madhuben Hatwarlal, Joravarnagar and ors. Vs. Prajapati Parshottam Tul ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Guj40; (1990)2GLR1177
ORDER1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree dated 23rd Jan. 1990 by the District Judge, Surendranagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1986, the appellants original defendants have filed this second appeal.2. The respondent (plaintiff) had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 75 of 1984 before the Civil Judge (J.D.) Surendranagar against the appellants for recovering the possession of the suit premises which consist of one room admeasuring 15' x 13' situated at Joravarnagar. It was contended by the plaintiff that deceased Jamnadas Chaturbhai was a tenant of the said premises. He had expired on 21st February 1983 without leaving any near relatives. On the death of the tenant, the appellants (defendants) trespassed upon the said premises and took possession of it. That suit was dismissed by the learned Judge by holding that the defendants were near relatives of the deceased Jamnadas and they were residing with him to three months prior to his death and, therefore, they...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Ramilaben Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2219; (1990)2GLR1202
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The appellant-accused was charged with the offence of killing her own four children namely, daughter Mina, aged 11 years; son Vinod, 5 years; another son Dilip, aged 3 years and infant daughter Sonal, aged about 8 months. The Trial Court, by its judgment and order dated 29th May 1984, held her guilty of offence of causing murders of all the four children, convicted her Under Section 302 of IPC and ordered to undergo R.I. for life and pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of Simple Inprisonment for 15 days. It is against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence the appellant-accused has preferred this appeal.2. It was the prosecution case that on August 7, 1983 between 12-00 to 12-30 noon time, the accused, was in her house situated in Old Krishnapura area of village Unjha, and there, in the house itself she intentionally inflicted axe blows on the head portions of four children and caused their unnatural death. The prosecution case as disclosed from the record ...
Tag this Judgment!Praful Keshavji Thakkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)2GLR1090
J.U. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner has come before this Court challenging the order of detention dated 18-2-1989 under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, passed against him by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department, Gandhinagar. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 9-3-1989 issued under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act by Shri B.V. Kumar, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, specially empowered in this behalf by the Central Government.2. From the allegations made in the grounds of detention, it reveals that on 10-1-1989 the detenu was apprehended along with others while the smuggled gold was being transported in truck bearing No. GQC 7280.3. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the grounds of detention it is mentioned that if the detenu wished to avail his right to make representation, he may submit...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Ramasi Devasi Bhil Alias Chakala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2801; (1990)2GLR1196
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The facts leading to this criminal miscellaneous application be briefly stated. In sessions case No. 91 of 1984 one Ramji Devasi Bhil alias Chakla was also arraigned as accused along with other five accused. All of them were charged for offence punishable Under Section 302 read with Sections 147, 148 & 149 of I.P.C. and for offence Under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Alternatively they were charged for offence punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and also for offence punishable Under Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act. It was alleged that on July 8, 1984 at about 1-30 p.m. at village Chalva Taluka Deodar, in the field of one Rabari Malabhai all the accused had assembled in unlawful assembly and had caused injuries to one Kanjibhai Bhanabhai by means of deadly weapons, like 'katar' (a crescent snapped weapon) and sticks. It was also alternatively alleged that all the accused had common intention of causing death of deceased Kanjibhai ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhupkumar J. Prem Vs. Amrut Nathu and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1990
Reported in: (1990)2GLR801
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. 'Can any Court deny justice to the complainant on the ground that the case has become old particularly when the complainant on his part has contributed nothing to occasion the delay in trial?' This is a question in focus round which the merits of the acquittal appeal are appreciated hereunder.2. This acquittal appeal arises out of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17th March, 1981, rendered in Criminal Case No. 723 of 1980 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 10, Ahmedabad wherein the respondent accused Amrut Nathu and three others who came to be tried for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 114 of I. P. C. came to be acquitted.3. In brief, the appellant before this Court is an injured complainant one Mr. Madhupkumar, J. Prem, at the relevant time, a Municipal Corporator and a practising Advocate in the lower Courts at Ahmedabad. The respondent accused herein are the neighbours of the said complainant. The alleged incident in questio...
Tag this Judgment!Arvindkumar Jasram Gupta Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC427; (1990)1GLR623
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for releasing the petitioner-accused on bail. The offence against him is registered, being C.R. No. 242 of 1989, at Kadi Town Police Station for offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short facts of the prosecution case can be stated as under :Shila, who was the wife of the petitioner, had a quarrel with her mother-in-law and the present petitioner her husband at 12-00 noon on the day of the incident i.e. 28-9-1989. That after the quarrel, at about 5.30 p.m. present petitioner had gone out for business with a larry. Shila was alone in the room and the mother-in-law and paternal aunt were sitting outside the room. Shilaben put kerosene on her body and got burnt. Shilaben was removed to the Hospital for treatment, where she has lodged the complaint, stating the above facts.3. It may be stated that in this matter, formerly, Misc. Criminal Application No. 2063 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Kantiji Chanduji Thakor and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2162
ORDERB.S. Kapadia, J.1. The petitioners are original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 who are involved in the offences Under Section 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 504, IPC on the allegations mentioned in detail in the FIR. It may be stated that so far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned there is an allegation that he has given dharia blow to deceased. So far as accused No. 2 (petitioner No. 2) is concerned it is alleged that he has given dharia blow to Jivenji, brother of the complainant and Shantaben, who is brother's wife of the complainant. So far as the accused No. 4 (petitioner No. 3) is concerned it is alleged that he has given dharia blow on the head and shoulder of Maniben, mother of the complainant.2. Similar application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 2272 of 1989 was filed in this court and it was heard by Justice J. U. Mehta on 28-12-1989. In the said matter with regard to present petitioners it was observed 'Looking to the part played by the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 the...
Tag this Judgment!Haiderkhan Lalkhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1266; (1990)1GLR498
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted for offence punishable Under Section 302 of I.P. Code by the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bombay as per judgment and order dated October 16, 1975. Initially he was sentenced to death by the trial court. However, on reference to the High Court, the sentence has been modified to that of R.I. for life. On this point there is no dispute. The petitioner-prisoner remained in Yaravada Jail in the state of Maharashtra till some time in July, 1977. In the month of July 1977, he has been transferred to Sabarmati Central Prison, Ahmedabad. Since then he is undergoing imprisonment in the Sabarmati Central Prison.2. During the period of his imprisonment in Sabarmati Central Prison, he has enjoyed parole leave on several occasions from 1979 to 1988. On April 8, 1985, he was ordered to be released on parole for a period of seven days. He surrendered late by about 116 days. He was tried for the jail offence inasmuch as late surrender is a jail offe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »