Karnataka Court December 1959 Judgments
Chinnappa Eshwarappa Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant242; AIR1960Mys242; 1960CriLJ1226a
ORDER(1) The point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether a First Class Magistrate appointed to a district can issue orders under S. 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947(which shall be hereinafter called the 'Act') for investigation of a case under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, if the offence in question has been committed in a place outside his local area as defined under S. 12, Cr.P.C. (2) The order in question relates to an offence which is said to have taken place outside the local area of the Magistrate. The petitioner is prosecuted before the Special Judge at Dharwar for an offence under S. 161, I.P.C. The investigation in the case was conducted by the P. S. I., A. C., and P. I., Dharwar. The offence is alleged to have taken place in Karajig, which is within the local area of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Haveri. But orders for investigating into the case were given by the First Class Magistrate at Dharwar. Both Haveri and Dharwar a...
Tag this Judgment!Prasad Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant230; AIR1960Mys230; 1960CriLJ1225
ORDER(1) The petitioner has been convicted under clause (k) of S. 56 of the Mysore Police Act, by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 11717 of 1959 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20.(2) The case for the prosecution is that the petitioner is the owner of a ferocious dog and he had let the same at large without a muzzle on the afternoon of 19-8-1959. It is further alleged that the said dog bit P.W. 1 at about 2.30 P. M. on that day. P.W. 1 and accused live in the same compound. The accused lives in the main bungalow and P.W. 1 with her family lives in one of the outhouses in that compound. It may be taken as proved that P.W. 1 was bitten by the dog as deposed to by her in her evidence. Her evidence on this point is corroborated by the medical evidence adduced and has been believed by the trial court.(3) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the biting in question had taken place inside the compound and the dog was let at large without a m...
Tag this Judgment!C. Raghavendra Rao and ors. Vs. Vasavamba
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant216; AIR1960Mys216
ORDER(1) The only point that arises for consideration is the one relating to limitation.(2) The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the point in controversy are these: The petitioner's application (I. A. NO. III) Under R. 90 of O. XXI C.P.C. was dismissed on 21-3-1957; thereafter he filed an application for copy of the order on 22-4-1957 under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act (which shall be hereinafter called the 'Act'); 21-4-1957 was a Sunday and 20-4-1957 was a penultimate Saturday. According to him, he got the copy applied for by him on 5-6-1957; the appeal was filed on 5-6-1957. The Court below rejected the appeal as being barred by time on two grounds: i.e. (1) the petitioner cannot combine the benefit of S. 4 with the extension of time provided under sub-ss. (2) and (3) of S. 12 of the Act'; and (2) the copy in question was really made really on 3-6-1957 which date had been fraudulently altered to 5-6-1957 and consequently the appeal is barred by time.'(3) In view of t...
Tag this Judgment!C. Gokulchand Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Kolar Circle
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-21-1959
Reported in: [1960]11STC567(Kar)
ORDERSomnath Iyer, J.1. This civil petition is directed against the provisional assessment made by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Kolar Second Sub-Circle, Kolar District, under the provisions of section 5(8) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, for the year 1959-60. The assessee who is the petitioner before us was required by the Commercial Tax Officer to furnish an advance estimate of his turnover for that year, and the estimated turnover furnished by the assessee was Rs. 15,000. The assessee also declared a turnover of Rs. 18,000 for the year 1958-59. After taking into consideration these materials, the Commercial Tax Officer observed as follows :- 'Considering the situation of the shop, and the inspection made of the shop. I fix the daily sales at Rs. 75 and thus estimate the sales provisionally at Rs. 30,000 for 1959-60 and fix the provisional assessment as under :- Gross turnover ... ... Rs. 30,000 Subject to tax under section 5(1) ... Rs. 30,000 Tax payable at 2% ... ... Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Rudrappa Fakirappa Sankannavar Vs. Mallangouda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant227; AIR1960Mys227; ILR1960KAR336
(1) The scope of Article 82 of the Indian Limitation Act (which shall be hereinafter called the 'Act') comes up for consideration in this appeal.(2) The facts proved are: the second defendant borrowed in 1926 a sum of Rs. 2,000/- From the Gajanan Urban Co-operative Bank at Byadgi; the appellant (plaintiff) and the deceased first defendant were sureties for the principal debtor (second defendant); the principal debtor defaulted in paying the amount borrowed; consequently there was an award decree in 1930 again the principal debtor as well as against the sureties; the principal debtor became an insolvent some time in 1933; the loan due to the Co-operative Bank in the year 1946 amounted to Rs. 4,800; at the stage the President of the Co-operative Bank sent for the appellant and asked him to pay up a sum of Rs. 1900 in full satisfaction of the debt due to the Bank: he promised the appellant that if he paid Rs. 1900 he would recommend to the Assistant Registrar 4, Co-operative Societies, Dh...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Srinivasan and ors. Vs. Bramhatantra Parakalaswamy Mutt, Mysore a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant186; AIR1960Mys186
ORDER(1) In this revision petition the true scope of S. 124 of the Indian Evidence Act which shall be hereinafter called 'the Act', comes up for consideration.(2) The petitioners who are defendants 1 to 3 in original Suit No. 172 of 1958 in the Court of the Munsiff, Srirangapatna, summoned the Special Officer, Efficiency Audit, Bangalore, who shall be hereinafter called the Officer' to produce the following documents: (1) the final report submitted to the Government on 2-3-1956 in respect of the allegations made against the first defendant; (2) the Petition filed by K.V. Seetharamiah of Kalaly Village 'Officer'; and (3) the statement of Narasimha Raghavachar Mukhami of the plaintiff-Mutt.These documents were produced into Court but the person who produced the documents on behalf of the 'Officer' filed a memo saying that he had been instructed by the 'Officer' to claim privilege under S. 124 of 'the Act'. The petitioners did not press their summons as regards document No. 1. Hence we ar...
Tag this Judgment!Revappa Vs. Gurusanthawwa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant198; AIR1960Mys198; 1960CriLJ1107
ORDER(1) This is a reference made by the learned District Magistrate of Gulbarga under S. 438, Cr.P.C.(2) Few facts need to be stated before considering the point of law involved. One Gurusantawwa, filed an application against her alleged husband Revappa under S. 488 of the Cr.P.C. Claiming maintenance from him, and the same was enquired into File No. 31/5 of 1957 on the file of the learned First Class Magistrate, Gulbarga, Revappa, the respondent in that application, resisted the claim in question. When the application came up for hearing on 19-2-1958, the petitioner therein absented herself and consequently the application was dismissed for her default. After the dismissal of that applicaiton, she filed a second application on 3-5-1958.It may be noted that in the first application, she had given the address of the respondent as 'resident of Nagergi, Taluk Gulbarga.' But in her second application, the address given is 'resident of Nagergi. Taluk Gulbarga and also residing at Roz Khurd...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Ranganagouda Venkanagouda Thimmanagpudar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Kant69; AIR1961Mys69; 1961CriLJ398
ORDER1. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar has made this reference in regard to proceedings in six criminal cases pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Third Court Cadag. The reference was made in consequence of revision petitions filed in each of the cases by the same person, Ranganagowda, who was arrayed as an accused in each one of the cases. The circumstances leading to the revision petitions are narrated in the order of the learned Judge resulting in the reference. In brief, it may he stated that in the course of investigation of a complaint of theft, the house of Ranganagowda was searched on 15-7-1952 and a large number of articles were seized. On the basis of the identification of articles by various persons who had laid complaints before the Police in respect of thefts alleged to have taken place from 25-6-1949 onwards the Cadag Town Police placed ten charge-sheets against Ranganagowda and others. While Ranganagowda figured in each one of the ch...
Tag this Judgment!Siddappa Gurappa Kopad and ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant237; AIR1960Mys237; 1960CriLJ1226
ORDER(1) The accused in C. C. No. 958/58 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, First Court, Bijapur, are the petitioners in this Court. One Hajisaheb Rajesab laid information before the police patil at Yakkundi complaining that the petitioners had committed an offence under S. 395, I.P.C. On receipt of that information the Sub-Inspector of Bableshwar investigated into the same and recommended to the Magistrate to drop the proceedings as no case is made out. Evidently the report in question is one under S. 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sometime after the receipt of that report by the learned Magistrate, the informant filed an application before him objecting to the recommendation contained therein. The learned Magistrate did not accept the recommendation made by the Police, and in spite of that recommendation be took cognisance of an offence falling under S. 395, I.P.C., against the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the learned Magistrate's action is ultra v...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalu Pujarthi Vs. Laxminarayana Bhatta
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant185; AIR1960Mys185
(1) The learned counsel for the appellant formulated two question of law for the consideration of this Court. They are: (1) the Courts below misread the evidence in arriving at the conclusion that the plaint temple is the owner of the suit properties and (2) that the suit is barred by limitation or at any rate by adverse-possession.(2) According to the plaintiff, the plaint temple is the owner of the suit properties and the same were in possession of the Archakas of the temple as service tenure-holders; now that the Archakas have been removed from their service, the plaint temple is entitled to recover possession of the suit properties. According to the defendant, the suit properties were the absolute properties of the family of Ranganna Bhatta and all of them excepting S. No 59/8 were sold in court auction in R.E.P. No. 919 of 1935 on the file of the learned District Munsiff. Udipi, on 21-4-1935 and purchased by one Ramacharya, who took delivery of the same after his purchase.The said...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »