Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1113
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These petitions raise a common question relating to be the validity of the order made by the Principal Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Haveri, under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The matter arises in this way:The accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 477-A and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian P.C. The learned Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet was filed, committed the accused to the Court of Session to take their trial in view of the gravity of the offences and the maximum punishment that is provided thereunder.3. In our opinion, the learned Magistrate was wholly in error in making the impugned order. Section 323 has no application to the facts of the case. It provides for the committal of a case which ought to be tried by the Court of Session. This is a case which is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The maximum punishment provided for each of the offences is 7 years. Section 29(1) of the Code of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1255
D.B. Lal, J.1. This appeal is brought from the judgment of the I Additional Sessions Judge. Dharwar in a case Under Sections 363 and 376 of the I. P. C., wherein sentencing the appellant Under Section 363, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted him for the offence Under Section 376. The prosecution case was, that Shafina Beguam who is decidedly below 18 years is the daughter of Abdul Rehiman and Chandabi and they were living in the town of Dharwar. At about 9 P. M. on 25-3-1974 a boy is stated to have gone to Chandabi in the absence of her husband and he informed her that Abdul Rehiman was beaten. Upon getting that news, Chandabi is stated to have sent Shafina Beguam to her uncle's place where Abdul Rehiman was supposed to be sitting. Accordingly Shafina Begaum went out and as stated by her the accused Davalsab met her, showed a knife and threatened her to accompany him. Thereafter the accused brought Shafina Beguam in a truck and both came to Hubli. After spending the night at Hubli bus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1976(1)KarLJ274
Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order made by Venkataramiah, J. dated 10-12-1975 in Writ Petition No. 6701 of 1975 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, Kundgal, rejecting his application for registering him as occupant under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The appellant was admittedly not in possession of the land from 1957 in respect of which he sought registration as occupant under Section 45 of the Act. The question is whether a person who claims that he had the right of a tenant but not in possession of the agricultural land on 1-3-1974, which is the date on which all lands held by or in the possession of tenant immediately prior to the said date stand transferred to and vest in the State Government is entitled to be registered as occupant.3. Section 44 (1) of the Act as amended by Act 1 of 1974 reads:'All lands held by or in the pos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1977Kant111; ILR1977KAR147; 1977(1)KarLJ4
ORDER1. this is a revision petition by the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 224 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Chitradurga.2. When the plaintiffs' counsel examined P. W. 3, he put certain questions, which were objected by the counsel for the defendant. The Court upheld the objections. Against the order of the Court upholding the objections of the counsel for the defendant, this revision petit-ion has been preferred.3. In my opinion, this revision petition filed under S. 115 of C. P. C. is not maintainable. If the trial court has upheld the objections on an erroneous view of law, the appellate court can correct it and additional evidence can be adduced. Secondly, every order made by the trial court in the course of trial is not open to revision under S. 115 of the C. P C. Section 115 of the C. P. C. reads as follows:'115. Revision- The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no. Appeal lies t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1977Kant112; 1976(2)KarLJ452
ORDER1. This revision under S. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (here in after referred to as the Act) is directed against the Judgment of the District Judge, Belgaum, reversing in appeal the judgment - of the II Addl. Munsiff, Belgaum -and thereby, remanding the - case after holding that the notice to quit served upon the tenant was valid and that the tenancy was legally determined. The remand was however made on the question of bona fide need of the landlady. The petitioner Parvatibai brought the petition under S. 21(1)(h) of the Act, against the tenant on the ground of her reasonable and bona fide requirement, it was stated in the petition that the tenancy began 'according to the English Calendar on the 1st day of the calendar month and ended by the end of the same month'. The tenant besides denying the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlady also contended that the notice to quit was 'illegal, invalid and did not terminate the tenancy.' The learned Munsiff found in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1977CriLJ304
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the order Of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chincholi made in C.C. No. 52/3 of 1975. discharging the respondents under Section 245(2). Criminal Procedure Code.2. The facts leading up to the petition are these:Respondent-1 was a Circle Inspector of Police attached to the Vigilance Cell at Tandur in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent-2 was the driver of his jeep. A transport vehicle belonging to the son of the petitioner when found transporting some bags of foodgrains was intercepted by respondent-1. The food-grains were seized and produced before the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad (D.R.O.) for taking action to confiscate them under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The D.R.O after notice to the parties ihcluding the driver pf the vehicle held that the seized grains were transported within ...
Tag this Judgment!