Karnataka Court January 1955 Judgments
A.S. Nagappa Setty and ors. Vs. Holalkere Municipal Council
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1955
Reported in: 1955CriLJ1082
ORDERPadmanabhiah, J.1. This is a revision petition against the judgment of the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Davangore in C. C. No. 960 of 54 convicting the petitioner-accused of an offence Under Section 86 (2), Town Municipalities Act and sentencing each of them to pay fine of Rs. 20/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week each.2. The case for the prosecution was that on the night of 15-4-1954 the petitioners-accused, with intent to defraud the Town Municipality had brought and introduced into the municipal limits certain goods liable for octroi duty, without paying the required duty, and that they thereby committed offences Under Section 86 (2) and Section 87, Town Municipalities Act. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused as stated above. As against that conviction and sentence, this revision petition is filed.3. The main point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction could be sustained. Various grounds ha...
Tag this Judgment!Sharada Bai and anr. Vs. K. Lakshminarayana Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant59; AIR1955Mys59; 1955CriLJ718
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Cr. Misc. Appeal No. 11/1953 reversing that of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mysore, in Misc. No. 103 of 51-52.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows: The petitioners 1 and 2, who are wife and husband respectively were defendants in O. S. No. 46 of 50-51 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mysore. The respondent was the plaintiff. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was based on a registered mortgage deed and the petitioners pleaded 'inter alia' partial discharge of the debt in Question. In support of the discharge pleaded, the petitioner produced two letters which are marked as Exs. I and II purporting to have been sent to them by the respondent-plaintiff, acknowledging receipt of Rs. 4000/-. The learned Subordinate Judge found, on evidence, that the discharge pleaded by the petitioners based on Exs. I and II was ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Bomanji Wookerji Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant96; AIR1955Mys96; 1955CriLJ973
ORDER1. These two petitions in which the petitioner is the same and the point involved is common can be disposed of by a single order. Both relate to cases in which the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 420, I.P.C. which, according to the schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, is bailable. The petitioner applied for bail and the learned Magistrate granted it on condition of his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- and furnishing two sureties for a like sum. The amount- mentioned being felt to be excessive, the petitioner applied to the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, for reduction of the amount, and he reduced it to Rs. 2500/-. The requirements of this order were satisfied and the cases are still pending in the Magistrate's Court An application was filed on behalf of the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the petitioner was repeatedly absent on the dates; (SIC) hearing of the cases and the progr...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Rangappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant134; AIR1955Mys134; 1955CriLJ1511
ORDER1. In the charge sheet presented by the Police in C.C. No. 53 of 1954 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Chikmagalur, the accused is said to have committed offence of theft with respect to a carpet in Tiptur which is admittedly not within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Consequently he desired that the case should be transferred to the Court competent to try it. The District Magistrate on being apprised of this has sought for orders of this Court for the case being tried in Chikmagalur itself as the complainant, the accused and the witnesses are all residents of that place and trial of the case there will be conducive to their convenience as well as speedy disposal of the case. The accused though notified, is absent and unrepresented.A doubt was at first felt whether Section 526, Criminal P. C. can be availed of when the case was wrongly instituted in a Court and no question of sending the case from one court to another is involved. There are, however, instances in whi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›