Karnataka Court April 1959 Judgments
State of Mysore Vs. Bantra Kunjanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant177; AIR1960Mys177; 1960CriLJ965; ILR1959KAR477
ORDER(1) The State of Mysore has moved this Court under S. 439 Cr.P.C. To enhance the sentence imposed on the respondent in C. C. No. 103 of 1958 on the file of the Munsiff and First Class Magistrate, Mercara. In that case respondent has been convicted under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a week.(2) The accusation against the respondent is that he caused the death of Basamma by administering to her on 27-1-57 at Nandigunda Village, Coorg District, some powder containing glycoside in a rash and negligent manner and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 304-A I.P.C. The learned Magistrate paragraph to have convicted him on his plea of guilty. If the offence is brought home against the accused the sentence imposed in this case undoubtedly calls for interference. It is surprising that the learned Magistrate thought that a fine of Rs. 10/- would be an adequate sentence for the off...
Tag this Judgment!Seghu Buchiah Setty Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kolar Circle and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1959
Reported in: [1960]38ITR204(KAR); [1960]38ITR204(Karn)
Hombe Gowda, J.1. The petitioner Seghu Buchiah Setty has presented these two petition sunder article 226 of the constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings of the Income-tax Officer, Kolar, and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, in the petitioner cases under section 45 and 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55. 2. Two separate orders for the years 1953-54 and 1954-55 were passed by the Income-tax officer against the petitioner under section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act fixing up his assessable income for the assessment year 1953-54 at Rs. 61,000 and demanding a tax of Rs. 19,808-1-0 and an assessable income of Rs. 1,21,000 for the assessment year 1954-1955 and demanding a tax of Rs. 66,601-3-0. The petitioner presented two separate applications to the Income-tax Officer, Kolar, under section 27 of the Indian Income-tax Act requesting him to cancel...
Tag this Judgment!District Magistrate, Bidar and anr. Vs. R. Madhava Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-14-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Kant12; AIR1961Mys12
N. Sreenivasa Rau, Offg. C.J.1. One Ramreddy as the agent of one Sangamma preferred a complaint on 12-12-1958 before the District Magistrate, Bidar, against one Manikreddy and three others in respect of offences under Sections 447 and 440 of the I. P. C. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused persons, armed with lathies and axes, trespassed on Sangamma's land situated in Myloor village, Bidar Taluka, at about 10 or 11 p.m. on 14-9-1958, that the object of Manikreddy was to take illegal possession of the land in spite of the fact that the Civil Court as well as the Criminal Court had decided that Sangamma was entitled to possession of the land and the Civil Court had restrained Manikreddy from interfering with Sangarmma's possession, that the complainant gave information of the occurrence to the Police Station, Bidar Rural, that though a first information report dated J5-9-1958 had been issued the investigation of the case had not been proceeded with as the Polite Circle Inspe...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ayodhyaraman Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-14-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mys212; 1960CriLJ1114
ORDER(1) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 17th December, 1958 passed by the City Magistrate, Bangalore, in Criminal Case No. 2240 of 1958 convicting the petitioner for an offence under S. 72(3) read with Section 124 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The learned Magistrate has further directed that the fact of the conviction of the petitioner should be endorsed on the registration certificate.(2) The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner V. Ayodhyaraman is the owner of the lorry bearing Number MYF 3286. The said lorry was being driven not by the petitioner but by his driver by name Alfred John. On 5-3-1958 at about 7-30 P. M. the lorry referred to above was being driven by Alfred John in Arcot Srinivasachar's street when the same was loaded with some goods and was checked by the Police Officers. It was found that the lorry had been loaded i...
Tag this Judgment!District Magistrate and anr. Vs. R. Madhava Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-14-1959
Reported in: 1961CriLJ111
N. Sreenivasa Rau, Offg. C.J.1. One Ramreddy as the agent of one Sangamma preferred a complaint on 12-12-1958 before the District Magistrate, Bidar, against one Manikreddy and three others in respect of offences under Sections 447 and 440 of the I.P.C. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused persons, armed with lathies and axes, trespassed on Sangamma's land situated in Myloor village, Bidar Taluka, at about 10 or 11 p.m. on 14-9-1958, that the object of Manikreddy was to take illegal possession of the land in spite of the fact that the Civil Court as well as the Criminal Court had decided that Sangamma was entitled to possession of the land and the Civil Court had restrained Manikreddy from interfering with Sangamma's possession, that the complainant gave information of the occurrence to the Police Station, Bidar Rural, that though a first information report dated 15-9-1958 had been issued the investigation of the case had not been proceeded with as the Polite Circle Inspecto...
Tag this Judgment!Gutteppa and anr. Vs. Ammaravva and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant211; AIR1960Mys211
ORDER(1) This Revision petition is against the order of the Munsiff, Kushtagi in Civil Suit No. 240/1 of 1957 holding on the first issue that the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the correctness or otherwise of the demarcation of the lands made by the revenue authorities.(2) The order passed by the learned Munsiff that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to get the lands in dispute measured and to ascertain on which of the lands the trees in dispute are standing is erroneous. The provisions of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act relied upon by the learned Munsiff do not lay down that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to get the revenue lands measured for the purpose of deciding the dispute between the parties. Section 99 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act which is relied upon by the learned Munsiff does not state either expressly or impliedly that the jurisdiction of the Civil courts is taken away. The learned Munsiff was therefore, entirely wrong in holding that the decision of the r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›