Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1
ORDER1. The question for consideration in this reference by the Sessions Judge is whether a Magistrate, while cancelling the preliminary order under Sub-section (1) of Section 145, Criminal P.C., can order the restoration of property attached by him under Sub-section (4), to one of the patties to the proceedings.2 This case started on an application by party 1 in respect of fields Nos. 147 and 610 of mauza Chaurahat, patti No. 2, in Hoshangabad tahsil. The applicant alleged that party 2 was threatening to remove the crops sown by the former, On 22-9-1948, the Magistrate promulgated an order under Sub-section (1) against party (1) and also directed attachment of the standing crops. Party 9 appeared and contended that the property had been acquired by their ancestors in 1921 and was all along in their possession.3. The Magistrate recorded the evidence produced by the parties but came to the conclusion that there was no likelihood of a breach of the peace. The preliminary order was accord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1951CriLJ160
1. Each of the respondents was convicted by the Magistrate, 1st Class, Jashputnagar, of an offence under Section 7 (1), Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, for the contravention of Clause 3 (1), Foodgrains Control Order, 1945 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 months. 170 maunds of food-grain seized from the respondents was also ordered to be forfeited to Government, In appeal the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, set aside the conviction and sentences passed on the respondents. The State Government have now come up in appeal under Section 417, Criminal P.C.2. It is accepted before us that respondent 2 Pitrus stored 170 maunds of gram in the house of respondent 1 Bakha. According to the prosecution, this amounts to a contravention of Clause 3 (1), Foodgrains Control Order, because neither of the respondents holds a licence from the Deputy Commissioner for dealing in foodgrain. On behalf of the respondents it is pointed out that Clause 3 (1) prohibits deal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1951Bom175; (1950)52BOMLR627
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Bhagwati J. by which he directed the issue of a writ of certiorari against the State of Bombay and set aside a requisitioning order made by Government.2. The petitioners purchased a property called Motabhoy Mansion situated on Churchgate Reclamation towards the end of 1943, and one Mrs. Coultrup was a tenant of a flat on the first floor of that building. On 31-10-1947, the petitioners gave her a notice terminating her tenancy at the end of the next two months and the tenancy came to an end on 31-12-1947. But Mrs. Coultrup continued to occupy the flat as a statutory tenant right up to January 1949. In or about the second week of January 1949 she left the premises and one Kundanmal Mahatani went into possession. Government requested the petitioners to accept Mahatani as their tenant in place of Mrs. Coultrup because they said Mrs. Coultrup had exchanged this flat with Mahatam's flat in Karachi. The petitioners were not prepare...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1951Bom233; (1950)52BOMLR648; ILR1950Bom706
Vyas, J. 1. This is an appeal in which the judgment of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Poona has been challenged. Appelllant 1 has been convicted under s. 168, Penal Code, and Section 6, Sub-section (2), Prevention of Corruption Act (II [2] of 1947) read with Section 5, Sub-section (1), Clause (d) of the said Act. Appellant 2 has been convicted of the abovementioned offences read with Section 109, Penal Code. On the first count appellant 1 has been sentenced to pay a fine of RS. 1,000 or in default to suffer 3 months' simple imprisonment; and on the aecond count he has been sentenced to suffer 1 year's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default to suffer 1 year's further simple imprisonment. Appellant 2 has been sentenced on the first count to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or in default to suffer 1 month's simple imprisonment; and he has been sentencedon the second count to pay a fine of Rs. 300 or in default to suffer 3 months's simple imprisonment. This is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom374; (1950)52BOMLR558
Chagla, C.J.1. By this application an order made by the Additional District Magistrate of Thana dated 26th April 1949, is being challenged. Though the order directs the petitioner to remove himself from the State of Bombay and the order is made under Section 46, Sub-section (3), Bombay District Police Act, 1890, it is contended that this provision of the law is void inasmuch as it contravenes a fundamental right given to the subject by the Constitution, and the fundamental right which is being relied upon is the fundamental right under Article 19 to move freely throughout the territory of India and to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. We have had to consider a similar question in Jeshingbhai Ishwarlal v. Emperor, : AIR1950Bom363 and we held that the provision of law under the Bombay Public: Security Measures Act, for externment was void, inasmuch as there was no provision made for the externee being heard by the authority externing him. Now when we consider the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR625
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The short point which arises in this case is whether Section 516AA of the Code of Criminal Procedure is retrospective in its operation. This question arises in this way :2. The petitioner had filed a complaint under Sections 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against one Karimkhan Sherali before the police on March 21, 1948. Subsequently a charge-sheet was submitted and the case was forwarded to the Court of the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Surat. At the end of the trial the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of the offence charged and made an order under Section 516AA of the Criminal Procedure Code that the complainant should pay Rs. 40 as costs to the accused. The learned Magistrate held that the complaint which had been filed by the complainant before the police was neither reasonable nor probable as it was not a bona fide or a genuine complaint at all. This order was challenged by the complainant by preferring a revision application in the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom363; (1950)52BOMLR544
Chagla, C.J.1. This is a petition by the petitioner against whom an order was served by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on 12th December 1949, to the effect that he should not be in any area in the district of Ahmedabad except with the permission of the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad. This order is mainly challenged on the ground that it is in violation of a fundamental right guaranteed to the citizen under Article 19(1), Sub-clauses (d) and (e). Those two sub-clauses of Article 19(1) provide that all citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, and the contention of the petitioner is that to the extent that he is not permitted to be in the district of Ahmedabad, his movement throughout the territory of India is restricted and his right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India is also restricted, and the contention is that these restrictions are in violation of the fu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1951Bom188; (1950)52BOMLR540; ILR1950Bom529
Chagla, C.J.1. The petitioner is being prosecuted before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate for having contravened Section 18(1), Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, and the application of the petitioner is that the prosecution should be quashed inasmuch as Section 18 (1), Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, is void and of no effect as contravening Article 19 of the Constitution.2. Now, before we consider whether Section 18 (1) contravenes a fundamental right which has been granted to the subjects under our Constitution, we have to decide whether we have any jurisdiction at this stage to consider this matter when the case is still pending before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate. Reliance is placed by the petitioner upon Article 228 of the Constitution, and that article provides :'If the High Court is satisfied that a case pending in a Court subordinate to it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution the determination of which is nec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom397; (1950)52BOMLR537
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises for the determination of this Full Bench is whether an application in revision made against an order of a Magistrate under Section 110, Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, XVIII [18] of 1925, lies on the civil or criminal aide of this Court?2. The Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act constitutes a special appellate Court in respect of the decisions given under Section 104 of that Act; and these appellate Courts, as far as Greater Bombay is concerned, are Magistrates or Benches of Magistrates to be designated by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, and the decisions of the appellate authority under Section 110 of the Act are made subject to revision by the Courts to which appeals against their decisions ordinarily lie. Now the contention put forward is that inasmuch as the decision is given by a Magistrate under Section 110 and an appeal from the Magistrate's decision lies to the High Court on its criminal side, the order of the Magistrate should be revised by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom380; (1950)52BOMLR534
Gajendragadkar J.1. This is an application for a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was prosecuted in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court, Bombay, for offences under Section 18(1) and Section 19(2), Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (Bom. Act LVII [57] of 1947). At the trial a charge was framed against him under both the aforesaid sections. The learned Magistrate hold that on the facts proved the petitioner was guilty of the offence under Section 19(2) of the said Act. He accordingly convicted him of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a day and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000. In default he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six weeks. Against this order of conviction and sentence the petitioner preferred an appeal to this Court, but the said appeal was summarily dismissed on 20th February 1950. The petitioner now wants a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) that...
Tag this Judgment!