Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)1GLR353
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. A.D. Oza, learned Government Pleader appears for respondents No. 1 and 3 and the later waives service of rule on behalf of these respondents. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appears for respondent No. 3 and waives service of rule Mr. P.M. Thakkar with Mr.N.V. Asher appears for the respondent No.4 and the later waives service of rule. With the consent of parties, this matter is finally heard.2. The petitioners have approached this Court by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the order dated 9th January 2003 passed by the District Development Officer, Amreli [hereinafter referred to as the DDO]. The petitioners have also prayed for appropriate writ to direct the DDO to grant permission under section 110 (1) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] for transfer of pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)3GLR2620
R.K. Abichandani 1. The appellant challenges his conviction under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for double murder, and the sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500=00, in default, further simple imprisonment for a period of one month, imposed on him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, at Vyara, on 7-10-1995 in Sessions case No. 91 of 1994.2. The prosecution version in brief is that, on 24th December 1993, at about 1.30 p.m., after the midnight, the accused, on seeing his wife Ramani and deceased Raman Bhurji lying together unclad, in the field of Jethiya Devji behind his house, gave axe blows to both of them causing serious injuries resulting in their death.According to the prosecution, the injuries with a lethal weapon like axe were inflicted on these persons with an intention to cause their death and therefore, the accused committed an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The learned trial Judge, on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2004CriLJ119; (2004)1GLR777
H.H. Mehta, J. 1. These two appeals are arising from one common judgment Ex.53 dated 31st July, 1995 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur (who will be referred to as the learned Judge of the trial Court) in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1994 by which accused Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 1995 came to be convicted, while respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 1995 came to be acquitted, and therefore, with the consent of both the parties, these two appeals are heard together and decided by this Common judgment.2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 1995 and who stood trial in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1994, have by filing Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 1995 under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), challenged the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence by which accused No. 1 is convicted under Sec. 235(2), Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)2GLR1064
J.N. Bhatt, Acting C.J. 1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot city, against the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred under Section 2[c] of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 [ the PASA Act ]. A few material and important facts may be highlighted at this stage.[1] The impugned detention order came to be recorded by the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City, the respondent No. 1, detaining the detenu under the PASA Act on 27.9.2002.[2] The grounds of detention came to be served and communicated by the respondent No. 1 to the detenu.[3] The order of detention has actually been executed upon the detenu on 27.9.2002.[4] A friend of the petitioner had made a representation and addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City as well as the Government.2. The detention order is passed against the detenu under Sub Section [2] of Section 3 of the Gujarat Preve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)4GLR970
J.N. Bhat, Acting C.J. 1. Age old contest between liberty and detention has once again surfaced in this petition at the instance of the petitioner-detenu by invocation of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Liberty is a basic and dynamic jurisprudential concept and philosophy, and therefore, it has constitutional and statutory safeguards for the preservation, projection and protection of the liberty of an individual. Since it is a dynamic aspect and concept, continued research is necessary to regularly assess the changing dimension and dynamics of such a constitutional right, personal right of liberty guaranteed under the Constitution, the highest law of the land.3. Preventive detention has long standing and deep rooted base in this country. The preventive detention is a serious in-road and encroachment on the liberty of a person. All human beings are born with free and equal rights. All human beings are, no doubt, gifted by their creator with certain unaliena...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2003CriLJ4378
J.N. Bhatt, Acting C.J.1. By this petition, the petitioner - detenu has assailed the detention order passed on 18.9.2002 under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City, on the ground that the petitioner is a 'dangerous person' and that he is also a headstrong and anti-social and that his anti-social and criminal activities are directly or indirectly causing or likely to cause harm, danger and alarm of insecurity amongst the people at large or a section thereof and that he is thus disturbing the public order and peace and that there is also a grave and widespread danger to public life and property.2. Challenge against the impugned order of detention is on various divergent grounds which are countenanced by the respondent-authority by filing an affidavit-in-reply dated 16th February, 2003.3. After having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned Assis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)2GLR1558
Akshay H. Mehta, J. 1. At the stage of admission hearing, we have been informed by learned Counsels appearing for the parties that the pleadings in this petition are complete and looking to the controversies that are involved in it, the petition is required to be finally decided. Hence, Rule. Mr. Amit Kotak, the learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent No. 1-State and Mr. K. M. Patel, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation (G.M.D.C.) waive service of the rule. The petition is heard fully and now it is being disposed of by this C.A.V. judgment.2. This petition is filed for claiming reliefs to declare that the acquisition of the petitioners' lands without prescribing for an adequate Scheme for rehabilitation and resettlement is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(d), (e) and 21 read with Articles 39, 39(b), 39A and 46 of the Constitution of India, and to direct the respondents by issuing appropriate writ, order or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)4GLR668
K.A. Puj, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order and judgment dated 1st/2nd September 1982 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2880 of 1980 whereby the petition filed by the present appellant, original-petitioner was dismissed. 2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that the appellant having passed his BE (Civil) examination with higher Second Class in 1967 joined as an Apprentice Engineer in 1968 with M/s. Gammon India Limited. The appellant was appointed as Junior Engineer and posted at Bokaro Steel Plants and subsequently was selected as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works Department of the State of Karnataka at Bangalore in 1970. 3. The appellant, thereafter, had applied for being considered for the post of Engineer (SC) in the Department of Space (Civil Engineering Division) of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). The appellant was selected as Engineer (SC) and was given his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)2GLR1643
H. H. Mehta, J.1. The original accused - Abdul Salam Yusufbhai Shaikh of N.D.P.S. Case No. 8 of 1996 tried and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari (who will be referred to as 'the learned Judge of the trial Court') has, by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') read with Section 36B of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the 'N.D.P.S. Act') challenged the correctness, legality, validity and propriety of judgment Exh. 42 rendered on 30th December, 1998, in aforesaid N.D.P.S. Case No. 8 of 1996 by the learned Judge of the trial Court by which said accused came to be convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, and he sentenced to undergo R.I. for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rupees One lakh, and in default of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one year.2. The facts leading to this present appeal i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)3GLR1982
H. H. MEHTA, J. 1.The appellant who was an accused in Sessions Case No. 358 of 1995 before the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad, has, by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') read with Section 36B of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the 'N.D.P.S. Act'), challenged the correctness and legality and validity of judgment Exh. 52 dated 11th September, 1997 rendered in Sessions Case No. 358 of 1995 by which the appellant has been convicted of the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 20(b)(ii) read with Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence committed by him under Section 2Q(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned Judge of the trial Cour...
Tag this Judgment!