Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005CriLJ3014; ILR2005KAR2576
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. This appeal is by the convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 challenging the judgment of conviction dated 7-5-2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar, in Sessions Case No. 23/1997 holding both the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life. It is reported by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the accused No. 2, Kariya @ Jogi, expired on 6-12-2003, which fact has been confirmed by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. Hence appeal abated so far as accused No. 2 is concerned.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution case, are as follows:The deceased Abdul Rahim Mohammad Khan Khaji and his two daughters, P.W.I. Sameenabanu and P.W.3 Bibijainabbi were the residents of Herur village. The accused No. 1 has his residence in the neighbour-hood of the house of the deceased. His arrack shop also is near his house. The accus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(2005)ACC232; AIR2005Kant162; ILR2005KAR387; 2005(1)KarLJ639
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 29.10.2004 issued by the respondent at Annexure -C. By issuing the said endorsement, the Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore (Central) has imposed fine of Rs. 2,000/- on the petitioner under Section 192(A) of the M.V. Act 1988 ('Act' for short) for violating the condition of permit issued by the respondent.2. On careful perusal of Section 192-A of the Act it is clear that the Court has jurisdiction to impose fine and consequently the Regional Transport officer has no jurisdiction to impose fine. Before imposing fine for the offence Under Section 192-A, the erring permit holder has to be prosecuted in accordance with law in the court of law and only after finding him guilty, the Court may impose fine. Against such conviction and imposition of fine, the appeal lies to the Appellate Court as is clear from Sub-section (3) of Section 192-A of the 'Act'. In view of the above, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR2808; 2005(3)KarLJ569
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The land bearing Sy. No. 22, measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and Sy. No. 23, measuring 18 guntas situated at Agrahara Dasarahalli, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, originally belonged to one Sri Munikrishnappa. The erstwhile CITE notified the land for acquisition along with other lands and a preliminary notification came to be issued on 6-4-1961. It was followed by a final notification dated 19-12-1961. The owner of the land Munikrishnappa requested the BDA to denotify the said land and release the same to him for the purpose of formation of industrial area. The said application was considered by the CITB and they did not proceed with the acquisition of the land. On the contrary, they entered into an agreement with the said Munikrishnappa on 12-12-1961 whereunder he was permitted to convert the land and also to form the industrial layout. He was called upon to pay the layout charges of Rs. 7,698/- which he paid on 11-12-1961. Munikrishnappa continued in possess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(2005)DMC735; 2005(1)KarLJ474
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. This appeal is by defendants and they are before me challenging the judgment and decree dated 23-12-1995 passed in O.S. No. 125 of 1990 by the learned Munsiff, Basavana Bagewadi, confirmed in appeal No. RA 30 of 1993 by an order dated 30-1-2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basavana Bagewadi.2. Facts in brief are as follows: Respondent-Sujatha, wife of Rachappa Kotagi filed O.S. No. 125 of 1990 seeking maintenance on the ground that she is the legally wedded wife of the first appellant. She states that she gave birth to a female child through first appellant. She stated that she had suffered ill-treatment and ultimately she was driven out of her matrimonial home. Matter was contested. Learned Trial Judge decreed the suit and granted maintenance of Rs. 300.00 per month. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Appellate Court. Concurrent findings of both the Courts are challenged in this appeal.3. Sri Kannur, learned Counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2005Kant276; 2005(4)KarLJ122
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is a student of 1st respondent-College and he joined the first year M.B.B.S. course on 30-9-2004 and he paid the tuition fee in terms of Annexure-A. Fourth respondent was selected by Common Entrance Test and she did not join college on 30-9-2004, the last date for joining the college. Three students who were selected by the Common Entrance Test in respect of this college were withdrawn and their admission was cancelled. The above four seats fell vacant for which the petitioner and other three students were admitted on the same date and they also started attending the college. Petitioner has also paid the necessary fee. Petitioner states that on 27-10-2004, a memo dated 21-10-2004 came to be served on the petitioner in terms of Annexure-E stating therein that the fourth respondent has filed a writ petition in this Court by challenging the action of the management in not admitting her to the college and that his admission stands cancelled as his admissi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR872
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The respondent herein was an Officer in ITS Group-B. By an order dated 9-6-2000, he and some others were promoted to Group- B on officiating basis and posted to Shimoga Telecom District. But, in view of pendency of a departmental enquiry, he was not relieved from Group-B post. By representation dated 20-6-2000 the respondent pointed-out that the enquiry proceedings had been commenced two and half years ago but his case for adhoc promotion should have been considered immediately after two years of commencement of such proceedings. By communication dated 29-6-2000 he was informed that in view of pendency of; disciplinary proceedings, he cannot be relived and thai the officiating promotion granted by order dated 9-6 2000 stood cancelled. The respondent assailed the same in O.A.No. 1019/2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 8-2-2001 allowed the application, quashed the order dated 29-6-2000 and directed that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR3449
N. Kumar, J. 1. As Identical charges are levelled against the petitioners, common enquiry was conducted, common evidence adduced, though separate orders are passed, common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these two writ petitions, they are disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioner is W.P.No. 30770/95 is one Sri S.G. Nayak who was at the relevant point of time working as Divisional Manager at Mandvi Branch of Canara Bank, Bombay, during the period May 1986 to July 1989. The petitioner in W.P.No. 30391/95 is one Sri P.L. Prabhu, who was working as Senior Manager in the same Branch during the period from 31.01.1988 to 21.01.1989. Against these two officers on 31st August, 1990, separate Article of Charges were issued accompanied by statement of imputation. Broadly, the charges levelled against these two petitioners are: Sai Group of Concerns had three accounts. One in the name of M/s. Sri Overseas International, second in the name of M/s. Sai Chemicals and thir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR238; 2005(1)KarLJ391
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioner has sought for quashing the order passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings Nos. MAG (1) CR 122 of 2002 and MAG (1) CR 136 of 2002, dated 21-11-2002.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader and also respondents 4 and 5. None represents respondent 2.3. It is stated that the petitioner is a Journalist holding a Diploma in Journalism and publishing a Kannada daily by name 'Jana Miditha' from Davangere. By initiating proceedings against him in No. MAG (1) CR 122 of 2002, the District Magistrate has passed the impugned order for violation of Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 and thereby convicting him and to pay Rs. 2,000/- fine and also to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and has also prohibited publication of the said paper by him. The same has been assailed by the petitioner on various grounds.4. It is submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that the entire proceedings initiated by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2005Kant128
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. IA-III is allowed. Amendment is permitted.2. Children of about 11 to 12 years of age are before me through their natural guardians in these petitions seeking for a writ or order declaring Article 106 of the Education Code (2004 Edition) as null and void and ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to promote the students of Classes V to VII as per the old Rules. They want a consequential direction to the respondents to adhere to the earlier Rules regarding promotion in so far as the petitioners are concerned. Their further prayer is for a direction directing the respondent to promote the petitioners to the next higher class as they have scored more than 33% marks in individual subjects. An alternative prayer is also made by the petitioners.3. All these petitioners are the students of Kendriya Vidyalaya. They have secured certain marks and they have been detained in the same class in terms of the results announ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR725; 2005(1)KarLJ319
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. The petitioner has sought for setting aside the order passed by the Special (Principal Sessions) Judge, Belgaum in Special Case No. 15 of 1998, dated 31-8-2004 in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Cr. P.C. seeking for the discharge on the ground of invalid sanction.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor and Government Pleader on the point.3. The facts which are necessary for disposal of the case is that the complainant-Anthony Fernandes is a businessman and is a resident of camp in Belgaum town. He has filed the complaint against this petitioner stating about 5-6 months prior to filing of the complaint, he had secured a tender for supplying desks worth Rs. 30 lakhs under D.P.E.P. Scheme from the Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Belgaum. He has supplied desks worth Rs. 15 lakhs and he received the payment. Subsequently, he supplied desks worth Rs. 10-12 lakhs an...
Tag this Judgment!