Mumbai Court October 1955 Judgments
Bhagwaticharan Ravishankar Shukla Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom233; 1956CriLJ498
Shah, J. 1. These are three applications for transfer of three cases pending against the Petitioner in the Court of Presidency Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Bombay. The Petitioner is charged with having committed offences under Section 332, I.P.C. and of being in unlawful possession of a revolver without a license. The offences are alleged to have been committed sometime in July or August 1954. The cases reached hearing in September 1955. The Petitioner had not remained present on earlier occasions and the learned Magistrate was required to issue warrant for securing the presence of the Petitioner.On 14-9-1955 evidence for the prosecution was recorded and charge was framed against the Petitioner, and the cases stood adjourned to 23-9-1955 for further cross-examination of the witness. On 23-9-1955 the petitioner did not remain present in Court, and the learned Magistrate issued warrant for arrest of the Petitioner. It is thereafter that the present petitions have been filed in this C...
Tag this Judgment!Parbhubhai Paragji Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom232; 1956CriLJ497
Vyas, J. 1. The petitioner in this application is one Parbhubhai Paragji. who is an accused person in Criminal Case No. 513 of 1954 pending in the Court of the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Navsari. It is prayed by the petitioner that the proceedings pending against him in the criminal case be quashed and that he be ordered to be discharged. It may be noted that a similar request made by him before the learned Sessions Judge, Surat, was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.2. It would appear that the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Navsari, was 'prima facie' satisfied that his Court has jurisdiction to try the accused upon a charge under Section 409, I. P. C. Mr. Rajani Patel, who appears for the petitioner, has raised a point that the learned Magistrate's Court had no jurisdiction to try the accused, because the entrustment had taken place In. New Zealand.3. Now if we turn to the charge against the petitioner, the charge leads that the petitioner was entrusted by one Parbhub...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Dattatraya Tulshiram Bhujbal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR157
Shah, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Poona, recommending that the order of commitment made by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 8th Court, Poona, committing the accused Dattatraya Tulshiram Bhujbal to stand his trial for an offence under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, be quashed and that the Magistrate be directed to deal with the case in accordance with the provisions of Section 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Rules framed thereunder.2. The accused Dattatraya Tulshiram Bhujbal was charge-sheeted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 8th Court, Poona, with having committed an offence punishable under Section 366, Indian Penal Code. The prosccution examined one Shakuntala, who was alleged to be below the age of 18 years, in support of the case that the accused had committed the offence, The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence of Shakuntala and other prosecution witnesses held that there was prima facie evidence against th...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Pandu Janu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom173; 1956CriLJ384
Vyas, J. 1. This is an appeal by the state of Bombay against a Judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, First class, Karjat by which judgment the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent Pandu Janu Katkari of offence under Section 66(b) and Section 85, Sub-section (1), clauses (1) and (3) of the Prohibition Act.2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State of Bombay does not challenge the order of acquittal so far as the charge under Section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act is concerned. What is challenged before us is the acquittal of the respondent in respect of the offence under Section 85, Sub-section (i), clauses (1) and (3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. In acquitting the respondent of this charge, the learned Magistrate has observed in the course of Judgment:'The condition of the accused that he was unable to take care of himself is secondary matter as it has in the first instance to be proved that the accused had consumed liquor which fell under the proh...
Tag this Judgment!GulamhuseIn Ahmedally Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom235; 1956CriLJ499
1. The petitioner Gulamhusein Ahmedally was charged with having committed an offence under Section 274 (1) read with Section 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The petitioner was tried before the Presidency Magistrate, 16th Court, Bombay, and was convicted by the learned Magistrate for the offence of failing to comply with the requisition made by the Municipality on 25-4-1955, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 days.2. On 25-4-1955, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner for the City of Bombay served upon the petitioner a notice purporting to act under the powers reserved under Section 274 (2) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888 directing the petitioner 'to work the pump adequately and regularly so as to keep the overhead tanks replenished at all following times 8 P.M. to 10 P.M. 11 to 1 A.M. 3 A.M. to 5 A.M. and 3 P.M. to 5 P.M.'.The petitioner did not carry out the requisition, and an officer...
Tag this Judgment!Velji N. Thakkar Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom247; 1956CriLJ502; ILR1956Bom458
ORDER1. The Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, acquitted the accused Damji Kanji Chandan of an offence under Section 500, Penal Code. The complaint in respect of that offence was lodged by the petitioner Velji N. Thakkar and in that complaint it was alleged that the accused had defamed him by publishing defamatory matter in an affidavit filed in Crl. Revn. Appln. No. 1227 of 1952, dated 19-11-1952, filed in this Court.The learned trial Magistrate was of the view that the imputations made by the accused were made in good faith for protection of his Interest and, therefore the accused could not be regarded as having committed an offence under Section 500, Penal Code. He held that the accused was protected by Expln. 9 to Section 499, Penal Code. It is not necessary for me to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of that view. It appears, however, that the alleged defamation took place on 19-11-1952, according to the complainant.The complainant appears to h...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Tukaram Khandu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom279; 1956CriLJ584
Dixit, J. 1. This is an appeal against an acquittal preferred by the State in a prosecution arising under Section 66(b) and Sections 85(1)(1) and 85(1)(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 'The acquittal of the accused under Section 66(b) is not now challenged.2. The finding of the Magistrate is that the accused was found drunk and was incapable of taking care of himself and also that he behaved in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink. The learned Magistrate, however, acquitted the accused on the ground that it was not shown by the prosecution that the accused had taken prohibited liquor. Now, this view cannot be supported in view of a recent decision of this Court reported in -- 'State v. Trimbak Dhondu' 57 Bom LR 541 (A).The question whether an accused person has taken prohibited liquor or permitted liquor is Irrelevant for an offence under Section 85(1)(1) or Section 85(1)(2). If it is shown that an accused person was drunk and incapable of taking care of himself and also h...
Tag this Judgment!Gangaram Ranaba Vs. Datto Appaji Powar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom328; (1956)58BOMLR161; ILR1956Bom258
Chainani, J.1. The facts which are material for decision of this appeal are briefly these: The suit house originally belonged to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. On 5th July 1946, they agreed to sell this house to the plaintiff for Rs. 2000/-. Rs. 125/- were paid by the plaintiff as earnest money. The balance was to be paid on the 17th September 1946, when the document was to be executed and registered.On 17th September 1946, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then presented it for registration, but the Sub Registrar refused to register it. The plaintiff then applied to the Registrar, Kurundwad senior under Section 73 of the Indian Registration Act. On the 25th July 1947, the Registrar directed that the document should be registered. On the 8th March 1948 the State merged with the Indian Union. Thereafter the plaintiff applied to the Inspector General of Registration complaining that he had not been informed about the result of his applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Natvarlal Ambalal Thakore Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR221
Dixit, J. 1. These are four special civil applications which raise common questions, and in order to understand the questions, it will be necessary to set out briefly the facts giving rise to each of the four applications.2. In special civil application No. 1510 of 1955, the applicant is one Natvarlal Ambalal Thakore who owns a shop at Baroda and carries on business in provisions and drugs in the name and style of'Ashwin Medical Stores.' The applicant was carrying on business in drugs under a licence issued to him by a licencing authority, who is the Civil Surgeon of Baroda, upon an application made on December 25, 1952. The licence was valid for a period of two years and on December 21, 1954, he made an application in Form 19A for a licence in Form 20A. The licencing authority viz. the Civil Surgeon, Baroda, refused the licence and communicated his decision to him by a letter dated July 2, 1955. On July 22,1955, the applicant wrote a letter to the Civil Surgeon and Licencing Authority...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalkrishna Govind and anr. Vs. Tukaram Narayan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom566
1. One Narayan Dhere, respondents 1 to 3 and respondent 4 had filed the suit from which the present appeal arises for recovery of possession of property which admittedly belonged to one Ganesh. Appellant 1, who was defendant 1, claims under an agreement for sale purporting to be executed by Ganesh's widow Laxmibai on 15-9-1945. By that agreement Laxmibai purported to sell the property in suit to defendant 1 a minor for a consideration of Rs. 6,000. Inasmuch as Laxmibai was only a limited owner her husband having died before 1937 she could sell only for legal necessity, and the agreement for sale said that the legal necessity was debts, one of Rs. 4,000 due to one Dandavate, and other miscellaneous debts of Rs. 1,000/- incurred by Laxmibai for paying doctors and for other medical expenses. Defendant 2 was the father of defendant 1 who has taken the sale deed on behalf of defendant 1. Defendant 2 is also the brother of Laxmibai. 2. The defence was that defendant 1 was in possession of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »