Skip to content

Karnataka Court October 1955 Judgments

Oct 17 1955

K. Malaiah Vs. State of Mysore

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Oct-17-1955

Reported in: 1956CriLJ253

1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-accused against the judgment of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division, in Tumkur Sessions Case No. 3 of 1955, convicting him of offences under Sections 467 and 409, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months, under each count, and directing that the substantive sentences should run concurrently.2. The case for the prosecution was that the accused, who was a postman in Kunigal Post Office, was on 28-11-1949 entrusted with a money order for Rs. 20/-, which was received from Bangalore as unpaid to the payee, for payment to the remitter P. W. 9 Ramkrishna at Kunigal, that the accused forged the signature of Krishnaiah (also called Krishnappa) on whose behalf the money order was sent by P. W. 9 and misappropriated it and that he thereby committed offences under Sections...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 1955

In Re: Seetharaman

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Oct-14-1955

Reported in: 1956CriLJ750

ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision by the counter petitioner in M. C. No. 6 of 1954 on the file of the District Magistrate (Judicial), Vellore, against the order asking him to execute a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour under Section 110 (e) and (if), Criminal P.C. The petitioner, herein was the counter-petitioner in the trial Court. He is said to be a graduate. Proceedings were instituted against him for taking a bond under Section 110 (e) and (f). Criminal P.C.The learned Trial Magistrate found that a case has been made out and directed, the accused to give security on his own bond for Rs. 1000 with two sureties each for a like amount to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. He found that a case has been made out both under Clause (e) and Clause (f) of Section 110, Criminal P.C.But on appeal the Sessions Judge held that no satisfactory case has been made out for action under Clause (e) of Section 110, Criminal P.C. but the evidence clearly disclosed tha...

Tag this Judgment!

  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files

Start your Free Trial