Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1951Kant118; AIR1951Mys118; ILR1952KAR24
Mallappa, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Mandya, in Mis. A. No. 2/48-49 setting aside the order of the Munsiff, Mandya, who had dismissed the application in Misc. No. 22/47-48 filed for setting aside a sale held in Execution No. 1117/43-44 on his file.2. The facts of the case are that a decree was obtained against the petitioner and his brothers in O. S. No. 608/40-41 on the file of the Munsiff, Mandya, and that in execution of the decree the property in dispute was sold on 14-6-45. The sale was confirmed, possession was obtained and the purchaser paid kandayam as well as contribution and water rate for conversion of the dry land into wet land. It is after this that the petitioner, who is one of the judgment debtors, filed Mis. No. 22/47-48 for setting aside the sale on the ground that he had not been served with a notice under Order 21, Rule 22, C. P. C. It is clear from the records that no such notice was served on him though a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1951Kant121; AIR1951Mys121
ORDERMallappa, J.1. This is a revision petition against thejudgment in criminal Appeal No. 233 of 50-51 onthe file of the Sessions Judge, Bangalore, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the City Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C. No. 1672/50-51under Section 188, I. P. C. and sentencing the petitioners-accused to undergo simple imprisonment,for 7 days. 2. The case against the petitioners is that the District Magistrate, Bangalore, issued a prohibitory order under Section 144, Cr. P. C., on 3-10-1950 prohibiting the assemblages and processions of more than 6 persons and all demonstrations shouting of slogans etc., for a period of 15 days within the limits of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation, and that the petitioners went in a procession defying the prohibitory order and as such the Police arrested the petitioners and placed a charge sheet for an offence under Section 188, I. P. C.3. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused petitioners and the conviction has been up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1951Kant117; AIR1951Mys117
ORDERBalakrishnaiya, J.1. This revision petition is filed by accused 1 in C. C. No. 1273/50-51 on the file of the Additional I Class Magistrate of Davanagore. The respondent filed a complaint dated 16-10-50 for taking action against the accused for offences under Sections 416 and 471, Penal Code., and Section 82, Registration Act. During the progress of the ease, on 21-3-1951 the petitioner filed an application in the trial Court under Section 195 (1) (c), Criminal P. C., stating that the complaint is incompetent without the previous sanction of the civil Court before which the offence is said to have been committed under Section 471, Penal Code. It is not disputed that merely a copy of the alleged forged document was produced in this case.2. Lord Simonds, in a recent case before the Privy Council Sanmukh Singh v. The King, A. I. R. (37) 1950 P. C. 31, has observed as follows: 'Section 195 (1) (c) only refers to a document alleged to be forged and not to a copy of it. The reason is tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1952Kant10; AIR1952Mys10
Vasudevamurthy, J. 1. The Appellant (accused) has been convicted by the Sessions Judge,. Shimoga Division, in Shimoga Sessions Case No. 4,/ 50-51 under Section 304(2), I.P.C., and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. The charge against him was that he committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death or one Mahomed, a brother-in-law of the accused's brother. P.W. 1 and the deceased are said to have gone to Bhadravati on the night of 1-5-1950 to collect some debts said to be due to them by the accused, and when they demanded the same the accused is said to have got enraged; and consequently there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused when the latter is said to have stabbed the deceased in the back with the Knife M. O. 1 as a result of which Mahomed died very shortly thereafter.2. That the accused was responsible for the knife injury on the deceased and for his death admits of very little doubt. In his statement both before the Committing Court a...
Tag this Judgment!