Mumbai Court January 1962 Judgments
Bandulal Balaprasad Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Bom258; (1962)64BOMLR354; ILR1962Bom490
Chainani, C.J.(1) This is an application in revision by the accused, who has been convicted under clauses (b) (c) and (f) of section 65 and clause (b) of section 66 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The offences under section 65 of the Act, are punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years. The case was, therefore, a warrant case and not a summons case. Section 116 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, provides that in all trials for offences under this Act, the Magistrate shall follow the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the trial of summary cases in which an appeal lies. Sub-section (1) of section 262 , Criminal Procedure Code, provides that in summary trials the procedure prescribed for summons cases shall be followed in summons cases and the procedure prescribed for warrant cases shall be followed in warrant cases, except as mentioned in the following sections in Chapter XXII. The trial Magistrates should, therefore, have followed the proce...
Tag this Judgment!Malji Manilal Kamdar Vs. Lalji Haridas and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom70; (1962)64BOMLR348; 1963CriLJ569; ILR1962Bom765
Chainani, C.J. 1. The facts giving rise to this Criminal revision application briefly are that the Income-tax Officer, Jamnagar, was holding proceedings under Section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, in regard to the assessment of the income of me second respondent, hereinafter referred to as the respondent. During the course of those proceedings the income-tax Officer, Jamnagar, came to Bombay and examined the petitioner on oath. The respondent's case is that the petitioner then made statement, which to the knowledge of the petitioner, were false. He, therefore, filed a complaint against the petitioner for an offence under Section 193 I.P.C., in the Court of Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court. An objection was raised to the maintainability of the complaint by the petitioner. It was contended by him that an Income-tax Officer is a Revenue Court within the meaning of Clause (b) in Sub-section (1) of Section 195 Criminal P.C. and that consequently the Court could not take cognizance of any...
Tag this Judgment!Mulji Manilal Kamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1962
Reported in: [1962]45ITR257(Bom)
CHAINANI C.J. - The facts giving rise to this criminal revision application briefly are that the Income-tax Officer, Jamnagar, was holding proceedings under section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, in regard to the assessment of the income of the second respondent, hereinafter referred to as the respondent. During the course of those proceedings the Income-tax Officer, Jamnagar, came to Bombay and examined the petitioner on oath. The respondents case is that the petitioner then made statements, which to the knowledge of the petitioner were false. He, therefore, filed a complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 193, Indian Penal Code, in the court of the Presidency Magistrate, 19th court. An objection was raised to the maintainability of the complaint by the petitioner. It was contended by him that an Income-tax Officer is a revenue court within the meaning of clause (b) in sub-section (1) of section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, and that, consequently, the court coul...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay Vs. N.T. Advani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom13; (1962)64BOMLR446; ILR1962Bom532; (1963)IILLJ563Bom
1. This is an appeal by the State against the decree passed by the City Civil Court, for a sum of Rs. 8062-2-0 made against it in favour of the plaintiff. 2. The short facts in the case are as follows: The plaintiff entered the service of the State in 1933 as an Assistant Director of Public Health, and was in due course confirmed as a permanent holder of the office. He was due to retire at the age of 55 on the 18th of October 1953. He says in the plaint that in the ordinary course, he would have been promoted to the post of the Director of Public Health in about February 1953 but as he was due to retire within about seven months, he agreed to work as a Junior Malariologist in the same Department and he was assured by his superior officers that even after superannuation he would be continued in service from 18th October 1953 to 13th March 1955. On 14th October, 1953, before due date of his retirement, Government issued an order as follows: 'Shri N. T. Advani, Junior Malariologist, Malar...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswamy Iyer Agnellus Lawrence Gopalan Vs. the Union of India and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom21; (1962)64BOMLR440; 1963CriLJ152; ILR1962Bom523
Tambe, J.1. Facts material for the purposes of this appeal in brief are: The petitioner Mr. Gopalan is an Ex-Army Officer. On 14th January 1955 he was convicted by a Court Martial under Section 409 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/-. The Military Authorities sent a copy of the sentence to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik, for the purpose of recovering the amount of fine. The Magistrate in his turn, in execution of the order of sentence, attached the following properties on 6th November 1955:1. Three Life Insurance Policies;2. Saving Bank Account of Rs. 10,000/- in the Punjab National Bank, Nasik Branch;3 A Radio; and4. A motor car bearing registration No. BML 2403;and since the date of the attachment the property has been taken in the custody of the Court. The car has subsequently been sold for Rs. 4,675/- and the amount is in Court. Petitioner's wife Mrs. C. V. Gopalan filed before the Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Sakharam Bagji Narwade Vs. Commissioner, Nagpur Division
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR341
Abhyankar, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arises under some unusual circumstances.2. The petitioner Sakharam Bagji Narwade was elected as a chairman of the Public Works Standing Committee of the Janapada Sabha, Pusad, by a resolution dated March 17, 1960, passed by the Public Works Standing Committee. This resolution is at page 14 of the Paper Book. Three members were present at this meeting which elected the petitioner as chairman. After he was so elected, a reference was made by the Chief Executive Officer to the Collector, Yeotmal, for publication of the name of the petitioner as chairman of the Public Works Standing Committee. The Collector was of opinion that no such publication was required in the case of election of a chairman of a Standing Committee of the Sabha. Thereon the Chief Executive Officer informed the petitioner by a letter dated June 4, 1960, that he could work as President of the Public Works Standing Committee. The reference to wo...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bombay Vs. Umarsaheb Buransaheb Inamdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR520
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, on a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay, raises the question whether the contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter called the Code, in the framing of the charge against an accused, vitiates the trial.2. The facts leading to the appeal, in brief, are as follows. The respondents were charged and tried at the same trial of the offences under Section 120-B read with Section 406, Indian Penal Code, and of an offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, committed in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy they had entered into. They were also tried, but acquitted of other offences charged with. They appealed against their conviction of the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 406, Indian Penal Code, and of the offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. The charge under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, was with respect to the commission of breach of trust of a sum of ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Satar Ahmedbhey and anr. Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1965Bom64; (1964)66BOMLR556
(1) This is suit substantially foe ejectment of the 3rd Defendant Society from out of Shops Nos.3 and 4 on the ground floor of an immoveable property situate at Dadar and mentioned in the Plaint. For the purposes of the above relief it has become essential for the Plaintiffs to challenge the validity of a requisition order dated February 20, 1957, and an allotment order dated May 22, 1958. This suit may therefore be described as suit for challenging the validity of the above two orders. The Plaintiffs have also challenged the validity of a prior requisition order dated December 11, 1943, and a de-requisition order dated October 14, 1957. As I will point out whist dealing with the contentions of the Plaintiffs, it appears to me that the challenge to these previous requisition and de-requisition order is irrelevant to be considered in this suit.(2) In respect of the facts leading to this litigation except on the minor matter there is no substantial dispute between the parties. These fact...
Tag this Judgment!Lalji Harbaji Kokate Vs. the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR437
Abhyankar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed by Lalji son of Harbaji. He claims to be a tenant of S. No. 18/2 of mauza Wardhapur in Arvi tahsil of Wardha district. Respondent No. 4 Bapurao is the tenure holder of that field. The 'petitioner's case was that he cultivated the laud as a Lessee in the year 1958-59. He was, therefore, recorded as a tenant in the Record of Rights prepared under Section 8(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, Respondent No. 4, the landlord, being aggrieved by this entry made an application to the Tahsildar under Section 8(3) of the new Tenancy Act for the correction of the entry. The contention of respondent No. 4 was that the petitioner was not a tenant and that he cultivated the laud in 1958-59 not as tenant but in partnership with him. The agreement was that ,each of them should provide a pair of bullocks. In addition respondent No. 4 kept a servant of his own for agricul...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalabai Jethamal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR517
J.L. Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay setting aside the order of acquittal of the appellant and sentencing her to one year's rigorous imprisonment and evicting her from the premises which she, was occupying as a tenant.2. The appellant was tried by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay, for offences under Sections 3(2) and 4(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (Act CIV of 1956) hereinafter called the Act. The charge against the appellant was that she supplied a girl to Manmohau Anandji Mehta who is a witness and she kept or managed a brothel at block No. G, plot No. 144, Shivaji Park, Bombay; that she knowingly lived on the earnings of prostitution and that she procured women for the purpose of prostitution. The story of the prosecution was that information was received by Police Superintendent Kanga that the premises were being used as a brothel and that the appellant was supply...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »