Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-17-1980
Reported in : (1981)83BOMLR75; 1981MhLJ93
Madon, J.1. The circumstances which led to this Special Bench being constituted are that on September 10, 1980 a Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Madon and Shah JJ., while hearing an Appeal, namely, Appeal No. 308 of 1979 Filmistan Private Limited v, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, against the judgment and order of Pendse J., sitting singly on the Original Side, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, entertained a doubt as to the competency of the said Appeal. Accordingly, they directed the papers in the said Appeal to be placed before the Chief Justice for him to constitute a larger Bench, if he so thought fit, for the determination of the question whether the said Appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this High Court. Six days later, that is, on September 16, 1980, while another Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Madon and Kania JJ., were taking admissions in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-28-1980
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1799
ORDER1. This Revision Application raises an important question in regard to the powers of the Court to cancel bail under S. 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973.2. Shri Samant, on behalf of the respondents at first stated that after the Rule is served in this matter upon the respondents, he would argue the matter fully; but later on he gave up this submission and stated that he would accept the Rule and argue the matter fully and final order an the is Revision Application should be passed.3. The prosecution case is that on 17-7-1980 a truck bearing No. ASZ-6377 was intercepted by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as 'D.R.I.') in collaboration with the Officer of the Land Custom Station, Patropole, on the Indo-Bangla Desh border, and it was found to contain 59 cases of snake skins valued at Rs. 44.40 lakhs along with 263 cases of fruit. The said 59 cases were declared by one Laxman Kumar Mishra of Calcutta to contain sweetlime. The 59 cases as also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-10-1980
Reported in : 1981CriLJ454
Gadgil, J.1. This matter is placed before us as the following question has been referred by Mr. Justice Pratap for decision by Division Bench :Is an order framing a charge an 'interlocutory order' within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Criminal Case No. 381/CW/77 is pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay. That case is against the three accused who are the petitioners before us. The allegation against the accused is that they have committed certain offences under the Customs Act. Evidence was led before the Magistrate before framing charge. Thereafter, the Magistrate considered the question as to whether there exist sufficient grounds for framing charge. The Magistrate passed an order dated 27th April 1979 that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. Consequently, a formal charge for having committed offences under Sections 135(a) and 135(a)(ii) was framed. It is this orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-14-1980
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1398; 1981MhLJ249
Waikar, J.1. In these two Criminal Revisions Applications (Criminal Revisions Applications Nos. 120 of 1978 and 158 of 1977) which were pending before the learned single Judge (Tulpule J.) one for admission and the other for final hearing respectively, a common question of law raised before him was one of interpretation of the provisions of Section 397(3) of the Criminal P.C. 1973 (hereafter called the Code).2. Against the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the present opponents non-applicants in these two revision applications had filed Criminal Revision Applications in the Court of Sessions Judge, Akola. The learned Sessions Judge allowed their revisions and feeling aggrieved by the said orders of the learned Sessions Judge, the present applicants (i.e. the unsuccessful parties before the Sessions Judge) filed these two revisions in this Court.3. According to the learned single Judge, a second revision to the High Court, even at the instance of the unsuccessful opponents before...
Tag this Judgment!