Karnataka Court August 1961 Judgments

State Vs. Santappa Alva S/O Ramayya Alva

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1962CriLJ445

M. Sadasivayya, J.1. This is a reference Under Section 438 of -the Code of Criminal Procedure made by the Sessions Judge, South Kanara, Mangalore. It pertains to the order of commitment made by the Sub Magistrate (Judicial) at Puttur, in P. R. C. No. 3/61 on the file of the said Sub Magistrate. By the said order of commitment the Sub Magistrate had ordered the respondent Santappa Alva to take his trial before the Court of Sessions for an offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.When the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, an objection seems to have been taken by the learned Counsel for the Accused, in regard to ths legality of the commitment. It would appear that before the Committing Magistrate, the prosecution had stated that two witnesses, namely Laxmi and Koragapp-.i would be examined for the prosecution. On 4-3-1961 both Laxmi and Koragappa were present in the court of the Committing Magistrate. Koragappa was stated to be an eye-witness, ...

Firm of C. Haji Abdul Shukoor and Co. and ors. Vs. Firm of C. Haji Moh ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1962Kant239; AIR1962Mys239; ILR1961KAR895

Narayana Pai, J.(1) This is an appeal by the defendants in original Suit No. 9 of 1957 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge at Bangalore, against an order dated the 9th of February, 1959, granting the application of the respondent- plaintiffs in Miscellaneous Case No. 109 of 1958 for review of the judgment dated the 30th of October, 1958, in the said suit. (2) The plaintiffs who are a firm of traders had originally filed against the appellant- defendants Original Suit No. 111 of 1956 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,117-1-11. The plaintiffs firm had not then been registered under the Partnership Act. The plaintiffs therefore sought, and were granted, leave to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one. Accordingly the plaintiffs full filed subsequently Original Suit No. 9 of 1957. The defendants also are described as a firm by name C. Haji Abdul Shukoor and Co., represented by seven persons described as its partners. The person named Haji Abdul Shukoor is sai...

Laxman Ramchandra Suryavanshi Vs. State of Mysore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1962CriLJ559

ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. In Crime No. 46 of 1958, the petitioner who was a police constable was accused of having committed an offence of theft. On August 13, 1958, the records relating to this offence which had to be handed over to the concerned Police Prosecutor, which are referred to by the learned Government Pleader as the Police Papers, were handed over to him. On September 10, 1958 when the Police Prosecutor who has been examined as P.W. 1 in this case was busy conducting a prosecution in the Court of a Magistrate and when the other inmates of the house of the Police Prosecutor had gone elsewhere, P.W. 2 the son of the Police Prosecutor who was at home, was approached by the Petitioner and persuaded to allow him to take those Police Papers from the place where they had been kept by the Police Prosecutor in his house. When P.W. 3 a Police constable went to the house of P.W. 1 in the evening, P.W. 1 narrated the incident. P.W. 1 later satisfied himself that the petitioner had n...

K.D. Appachu and ors. Vs. State of Mysore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1962Kant167; AIR1962Mys167

ORDER(1) The petitioners were charged with having committed an offence punishable under section 385 of the Penal Code. The case was instituted on a police report and since it was a warrant case the provisions of Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure were applicable to its trial.(2) On December 22, 1960, the District Magistrate before whom the case was pending made the order against which this revision petition has been presented, purporting to do so under Section 251-A (2) and 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was of the view that in order to understand more fully the case of the complainant, and to decide whether a charge should or should not be framed, it was necessary for him to examine the complainant at that stage. He accordingly directed the complainant to appear before him and examined him on a subsequent date of hearing.(3) In this revision petition, Mr. Ramanathan, appearing for the petitioners contends that the procedure adopted by the District Magistrate amou...

Padmavati Bai Vs. Kalyan Rao

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1962CriLJ706

ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. This reference has been made by the District Magistrate, Gulbarga, in a matter arising out of proceedings instituted Under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In those proceedings, an order for maintenance was made against the husband and, after that order was made, the Magistrate issued a warrant for levying the amount due, under Sub-section (3) of that section. Against the issue of the warrant in that way, the husband made a complaint in the revision petition presented to the District Magistrate. and it is as a consequence of the representation of that revision petition, that this reference has been made.3. The District Magistrate points out in his reference that since the issue of the warrant was not preceded by a notice calling upon the husband to comply with the order made Under Section 488(1), the warrant was not legally or validly issued.4. The learned Government Pleader, Mr. Mariappa, supports the reference and since the wife in whose f...

K. Nagappa Shetty Vs. Babu Achari and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1962Kant179; AIR1962Mys179

(1) This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by both the Court below. (2) The question that has been raised in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, who claims a prescriptive right over the servant tenement belonging to the defendants at the time of the suit but which prior thereto belonged to Government , has to prove user for period of 20 years or 60 years in order to acquire the right of easement. A subsidiary point was also raised viz ., whether the plaintiff can tack on the user against the Government prior to 1951 when defendants 1 and 2 were assigned the two survey Nos. Viz., 288 / 2B and 288 / 2A respectively. (3) The relevant facts which are necessary for the purpose of understanding the two points raised above may shortly be stated as follows : (4) The plaintiff is the owner of S. Nos. 50/2, 50/7, 50/8, and 50/11. Defendants 1 and 2 are the assignees of the lands S. Nos. 288/2B and 288/2A respectively from the Government in the year 1951; i.e., before ...

B.P. Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Mysore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1965CriLJ568; (1964)1MysLJ340; [1962]13STC436(Kar)

ORDERSomnath Iyer, J.1. The main question to be decided in this case is whether the tax payable under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, in respect of sales of beer manufactured in India is three per cent. or twenty-five per cent. of the turnover. The material facts are these : The petitioner is a dealer in liquor carrying on his business in a place known as Subha Bar, and for the assessment year ending on 31st March, 1958, in his return which he furnished under section 12 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, he declared his turnover to be Rs. 60,000. In respect of the half year ending on 31st March, 1958, the Commercial Tax Officer computed the turnover of the petitioner to be Rs. 39,000. 2. The process by which he reached that conclusion was this : On 1st October, 1957, on which date the Act came into force, the petitioner had with him stocks of liquor of the value of Rs. 15,634-75 up. To this amount, the Commercial Tax Officer added a sum equivalent to twelve and half per cent. thereof w...

Philip Pharaak Fernandes and anr. Vs. the State of Mysore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1962CriLJ560

ORDERMir Iqbal Hussain, J.1. This is a revision against the conviction of two accused who are the petitioners before this Court by the learned Sessions Judge, North Kanara Accused convicted Under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to 4 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Accused 2 is convicted Under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to two months R. I. only.2. The facts leading to this revision are briefly as follows: On 3-1-1957 at Kasarket (N. E.) between 2.30 or 3 P. M. a scuffle took place in a street between the accused and the complainants who are P.Ws. 1 and 2. These two are closely related to each other. That these witnesses were injured there can be no doubt. P.W. 1 seems to have received serious injuries. It is also not denied that accused 2 also has sustained injuries. As per the certificate marked as Exhibit P-30 issued by the Medical Officer of Bonnavar who has been examined as P.W. 4 in the case, the injury on the head of accused 2 above the right ear was a contused one 2'x1/2'x...

M.N. Setty Vs. V.A. Subbiah Setty

Court: Karnataka

ORDER(1) The only point for determination in this revision petition is whether the entry in an account book is admissible in evidence as contended by the petitioner in this case, or whether it is an acknowledgment of liability in order to supply evidence of such debt and hence is inadmissible as not having been duty stamped. In the view of the learned Civil Judge, Kolar it is of the latter category and not being duty stamped is inadmissible in evidence. (2) The facts leading up to this petition are briefly as follows : The plaintiff who is the petitioner before this Court filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts. He alternately prayed for payment of Rs. 9,853/-. According to the plaintiff, he and the defendant were partners though this fact is denied by the defendant. On 31-12-1954, accounts of the partnership were looked into and the balance was struck which showed that there was a loss of Rs. 17,000/- and odd. As per plaintiff- petitioner this loss was shared by b...

N. Thimmiah Vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1962Kant215; AIR1962Mys215

Somnath Iyer, J.(1) The petitioner is an operator, operating his stage carriage between Kowdley and Bevakallu, via Hosagive and Mandya, Respondent 4 is another operator, operating his stage carriage between Hosagavi and Malavalli, via Mandya. The route between Hosagavi and Mandya is therefore a route common to the petitioner and respondent 4. (2) Originally, the petitioner was leaving Hosagavi at 7.30 a.m., reaching Mandya at 8.30 a.m. Respondent 4 was leaving Hosagavi at 9.30 a.m., reaching Mandya at 10.30. These timings were assigned to the petitioner and respondent 4 by a consent order made by the Regional Transport Authority on April 27, 1955. (3) On March 20, 1956, respondent 4 applied for an extension of his route. He wanted his route to be extended from Hosagavi to a place called Devalapura, so that he could leave Devalapura, arrive at Hosagavi and from that place proceed to Mandya. The distance between Hosagavi and Devalapura is eight miles. That extension for which respondent ...