Karnataka Court April 2006 Judgments

State by Cubbonpark Police Station Vs. Mohammed Sadiq

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ294

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The accused is acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 333 of the IPC. The case of the prosecution discloses that on 15-6-1998 at 6.45 p.m. the accused was driving the auto on the M.G. Road, jumped the signal line. P.W. 2-the duty Police Constable gave a vigil to accused to stop his auto. The accused instead drove the auto suddenly in a rash and negligent manner, tried to escape the consequence of law. P.W. 1-the Police Inspector chased the auto the accused. P.W. 2 got into auto of P.W. 8 and chased the auto of the accused. The auto of the accused is intercepted near Kamaraj Road by P.W. 1. The accused denied the commission of any traffic offence, further, furiously hit P.W. 2 on his chest as a result, the three ribs of the left side are fractured. The police and the people apprehended the accused, he was take to the police station. P.W. 1 lodged complaint. P.W. 2 is sent to the hospital for treatment. The medical record discloses the fracture of three ri...

iranna Vs. Government of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN. Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother of one Ranaji and son of Barmaji. He has challenged in this writ petition the order of detention dated 2-6-2005 passed by the 2nd respondent against the detenu Ranaji on several grounds under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The main ground on which the petitioner is challenging the order of detention is non-compliance of Section 10 of the Act. The order of detention was passed on 2nd November, 2005 under Section 3(2) of the Act. In pursuance to the said order of detention, the detenu was taker; to custody on 4-6-2005. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent submitted a report to the State Government. The State Government has approved the order of detention under Section 3(3) of the Act on 13-6-2005. Thereafter, the State Government has placed before the Ad...

Shrimanth and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secre ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(3)KarLJ479

ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. This is a Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:(a) Issue a Writ of certiorari and to quash the impugned order dated 11.2.2003 passed in Case No. ED 2003 PMC 2002 Bangalore produced at Annexure-N.(b) Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to release the salaries of the Petitioners which was in due from 2000.(c) Issue a Writ of certiorari and to quash the endorsement dated 24.4.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent in case No. C 7(5). PRA. SHIP.ha. dave. 1/2003-04 produced at Annexure-P and to quash the impugned endorsement dated 18.8.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent in case No. C.7(5) PRA. SHIP.ha.dave. 1/2003-04 produced at Annexure P3.(d) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including an order of costs.2. The petitioners are represented by Sri. K.M. Eshwarappa Learn...

Sri. Muniyappa S/O Late Avalappa Vs. State Government, Revenue Departm ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(4)KarLJ711

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This is a Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India dt: 26-04-2004 passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore in Revision Petition No. 28/2002-03 at Annexure-'J' by restoring the revenue in entries in favour of the Petitioner in respect of land bearing Sy.No. 47/1, Balagere Village in Varthur Hobli to the extent of 1.34 guntas.2. Having heard the learned Counsel for both the parties the short point that arises for consideration and determination is, whether the order under challenge passed by the Revenue Authorities without appreciating the contentions taken by the petitioner over the knowledge of the orders passed are liable to be quashed.3. It is seen that petitioner-Muniyappa is stated to be the nephew of one Yellamma through whom he claims to be the owner of the property hearing Sy.No. 47/1 situated at Balagere village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore to the extent of 1 acre 34 guntas. In order to show that s...

B. Ananda S/O Babu Poojari, Vs. State of Karnataka by Its State Public ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ155

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. A.1 is convicted for an offence Under Section 326 IPC. A.2, A.3 and A.5 are convicted an offence Under Section 324 IPC. A.4 was dead at the time of trial. The accused are acquitted of the offence Under Section 143, 148, 302 r/w. Section 149 IPC.2. The prosecution case discloses that for some time before the incident during night hours there used to be stone pelting on the house of A.2. In that connection the accused suspected the deceased. Hence on 4-11-1993 at 8 p.m. all the accused carrying clubs and other weapons went to the house of deceased and questioned him. The deceased denied his role. The accused got enraged saying that by polite enquiries, he is not going to budge thus the accused persons assaulted the deceased with clubs on the neck, legs and on the face. P.W.7 is the wife of deceased a witness to the incident. P.W.1 and 2 sons of the deceased have gone to rescue. A.3 assault P.W.1. On the next day morning the deceased is admitted to hospital. It is fo...

Smt. Patil Vaishali Ashok Vs. Digambarrao Yashwantrao Patil and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2006Kant205

ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner who has lost election to the 1st respondent to the Legislative Assembly Election held on 26th April, 2004, has called in question the election of 1st respondent on the ground that the 1st respondent had indulged in corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RP Act') by appealing to the voters on communal grounds and also on the basis of Marathi language.2. In I.A. No. 3 of 2004 filed under Order 6, Rule 16; Order 7, Rule 11(a) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') read with Section 86 of the RP Act, the 1st respondent has prayed for striking down the pleadings at paragraphs 8 to 14 of the petition; and in LA. No. I of 2005 filed under Section 86(1) of the RP Act, he has prayed for dismissing the election petition for want of cause of action.3. The facts in brief:The petitioner in this...

New India Assurance Co Ltd. and anr. Vs. Riaz and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR1062

ORDERJawad Rahim, J.1. The owner - insured and insurer of Matador Van bearing registration No. KA-04 2473 are in appeal against the judgment and award in MVC 19/2002 dated 17-02-2003 awarding to the first respondent in M.F.A. No. 6622 of 2003 compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,15,150/- towards physical permanent disability suffered by him as a result of injuries in the road traffic accident.2. The claimant, who in First Respondent in MFA No. 6622/2003 is also in appeal in MFA No. 6631/2004. As common questions of fact and law arise, the appeals are clubbed and heard together at the stage of admission itself as requested by both sides.3. As MFA 6622/2003 is a joint appeal by the insured and the insurer, though the insurer was not impleaded or granted permission to contest the claim on all grounds postulated under Clause (a) and (b) of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, (In short 'the Act'), a question regarding its maintainability is a moot question that has arisen for consideration. We ...

Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Anjaneyaswamy Temple represented by its Archak Sri Srinivasamurthy is before me seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27-7-2005 (Annexure-L) passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore.2. Respondent 3-Krishnappa, claiming to be a tenant filed Form 7 before the Land Tribunal. Same was rejected by an order dated 21-6-1977. Third respondent thereafter filed Form I under Rule 7(4) of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Rules, 1956 on 2-7-1983. Land Tribunal by its order dated 25-3-1988 rejected the claim of respondent 3 in respect of Survey No. 77 of Thindlu Village of Yelahanka Hobli to an extent of 1.20 cents. A writ petition was filed in W.P. No. 28171(A) of 1991 by the third respondent challenging the said order of the Tribunal. This Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal in terms of its order dated 14-8-1996. Tribunal thereafter granted occupancy rights in favour of Krishnappa by its order dated 30-7-1997. That...

State of Karnataka Vs. Muniyappa S/O. Govindappa, Major,

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3146; 2006(4)KarLJ213

1. This is yet another unfortunate case of dowry death, which we have to deal in appeal.2. The respondents are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of deceased Gayithri.3. The (SIC) appeal in Crl.A. No. 643/2005 is by the State aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC, whereas the (SIC) appeal in Crl.A.No. 1771/2004 is by the respondents assailing the order of conviction by the trial court for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.4. The prosecution case in brief is to the effect that deceased - Gayithri was given in marriage to respondent No. 1 and the marriage took place on 26.6.1995. PW.1 is the father of deceased - Gayithri. It is the prosecution case that at the time of marriage, the accused persons demanded Rs. 20,000/- towards dowry, out of which PW.1 paid Rs. 12,000/- towards dowry and in addition Rs. 2,000/- towards clothes and Rs. 1,000/- for watch ...

N. Govardhan S/O Radha Chetty Vs. Javob Abhraham Major

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2008)BC62; 2006CriLJ3411

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The statutory notice is issued on 23.2.99. Respondent-accused received notice on 26.2.99. The complaint is filed on 13.3.1999. The date of receipt of notice is to be excluded for reckoning the limitation. Thus it is seen that the complaint is filed on the 46th day. There is a delay of one day in filing the complaint. The amended provisions of the N.I. Act permitting codonation of delay in filing the complaint is effected subsequent to the commission of the offence. Article 20 of the constitution injects that no legislation can be made to make an act or omission constitute an offence punishable offence with retrospective effect. In that view, the delay of one day cannot be condoned. The complaint is barred by time. The order of acquittal is sound and proper. The appeal is dismissed....