Court : Chennai
Reported in : 36Ind.Cas.483; (1916)31MLJ440
Oldfield, J.1. It is not disputed that interference, with the order of the District Munsif, granting sanction, can be justified only under Section 115(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. Both the learned Judges have dealt with the case on that assumption and it is therefore unnecessary to refer to authorities in support of it. Abdur Rahim, J., further referred to Section 15 of the Charter Act and something was said regarding it by accused's counsel. We have however been shown only one reported case, in which this Court proceeded under it in circumstances similar to those now in question: Palaniappa Chetti v. Annamalai Chetti I.L.R. (1903) M. 223 and the facts in it were of a very special character. I moreover agree with Ayling, J., that our power of superintendence should be invoked only in exceptional cases; and. this is not one. The question then is whether the District Munsif in the words of Section 115(c) acted in passing his order illegally or with material irregularity in the exercis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)22MLJ490
Benson, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried by a Special Bench of this Court, constituted under Section 6(6) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, for an offence, punishable under Section 121 A, Indian Penal Code (conspiring to commit certain offences against the State), and also with abetting the murder of Mr. Ashe. The Special Bench acquitted all the accused on the latter charge. The majority of the Court (Sir Arnold White, C.J. and Ayling, J.) convicted the first seven and the 14th accused of the offence, charged under Section 121 A and acquitted the remainder. The third Judge of the Special Bench (Sankaran Nair, J.) convicted the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 14th accused and acquitted the remainder. The late Advocate-General has given a certificate under Clause 26 of the Amended Letters Patent of 1865 to the effect that the decision of the Court on certain specified points of law requires further consideration. The present Advocate-General, who, as Public Prosecutor, appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2000]242ITR89(Mad)
V. Bakthavatsalu, J. Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 1990 :1. This appeal is preferred by the complainant, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Salem, against the order of acquittal passed in F.O.C.C. No. 341 of 1989. The case of the complainant is that the first accused is a private limited company engaged in running a spinning mill in the name and the style of 'Jawahar Mills Limited'. The second, third and fourth accused are the principal officers of the first accused who are responsible for the conduct of the business. The provisions of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prescribed the mode of acceptance of any deposit or loan by the income-tax assessee. The above provision has come into force with effect from April 1, 1984. On scrutiny of the books of account of the first accused company for the year March 31, 1985, it was noticed that the first accused accepted the deposit of Rs. 10,000 or more violating the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. In the case of Vaiya-puri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1964Mad185; 1964CriLJ519
ORDERKailasam, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code to call for the warrant issued in S. T. 336 of 1960 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, which was endorsed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, for execution and for return of the same to the Court of issue. The petitioner alleged that he was convicted of an offence under the provisions of the Kerala Sales Tax Act for default of payment of sales tax by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. The arrears of sales tax due, a sum of Rs. 6000/- was also directed to be collected as fine. A warrant was issued by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, addressed to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras for the purpose of endorsing the warrant under the provisions of Section 387 Criminal Procedure Code and for execution. The warrant was endorsed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate and forwarded to the Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1723; I(1999)DMC275
ORDER1. Petitioner who has failed in both the courts below in claiming maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the respondent, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court to set aside the order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 80 of 1993 on the file of Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. 2. This petition arose in this way. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Chidambaram, in N.C. No. 1/92, claiming maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month. The averments made in the said petition are that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent, who is working as Engineer in Public Works Department, earning Rs. 5000/- per month. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place in 1968 as Bhuvanagiri, that the respondent was given Rs. 20,000/- and 15 sovereigns of jewels as dowry. After the marriage, they lived together for some t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 14Ind.Cas.896
Ralph Benson, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried by a Special Bench of this Court, constituted under Section 6(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 108, for an offence punishable under Section 121A, Indian Penal Code (conspiring to commit certain offences against the State), and also with abetting the murder of Mr. Ashe. The Special Bench acquitted all the accused on the latter charge. The majority of the Court (Sir Arnold White, C.J., and Ayling, J.,) convicted the first seven and the 14th accused of the offence charged under Section 121A and acquitted the remainder. The third Judge of the Special Bench (Sankaran Nair, J.,) convicted the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 14th accused and acquitted the remainder. The late Advocate-General has given a certificate under Clause 26 of the Amended Letters Patent of 1865 to the effect that the decision of the Court on certain specified points of law requires further consideration. The present Advocate-General, who, as Public Prosecutor, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3114; (2009)222CTR(Mad)470; [2009]309ITR277(Mad); [2009]179TAXMAN212(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. Since common questions arise for consideration in the above Criminal Original Petition and in the above Criminal Revision Case both the cases are disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the above cases are set-out below:(i) The petitioner is the accused in E.O.C.C. No. 263 of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offence-I), Egmore, Chennai - 8. The respondent filed a complaint for the alleged offence under Section 35(B) of The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of non-filing of the Wealth Tax Return for the assessment year 1993-1994. The gist of the allegations are as under:(ii) The petitioner is the General Secretary of the political party-All India Anna Dravidar Munnetra Kazhagam (A.I.A.D.M.K.). Earlier she was a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha). She was also the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu during the period 199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. An important question relating to the conflict between the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution which an accused possesses and the larger societal interest in effecting crime detection is involved in this Criminal Original Petition. 2. Challenge in this Criminal Original Petition is to the order dated 04.10.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur in Crl.M.P.No.6371 of 2011, declining to authorize the detention of the respondent herein in police custody during the initial period of 15 days of remand. 3. The respondent herein is an accused in Crime No.267 of 2011 for offences under Sections 147, 353, 506(i) IPC r/w 3(1) of PPDL Act 1992 and 4(1), 4(1A), 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. He was formally arrested on 01.10.2011 by the police, and thereafter, produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Karur, with a request for remand on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1975)1MLJ188
N. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The appellant Misrimal Hansraj was convicted under Section 135 (b)(ii) of the Customs Act (hereinafter called ' the Act') and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras.2. In respect of the disposal of the alleged smuggled watches (M.O. 1 series), no separate order was passed as, in the opinion of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, they have been already confiscated to the State by the Customs Authorities.3. The appellant is running a business in watches and other fancy goods in the premises at No. 97, Narayana Mudali Lane, George Town, Madras, under the name and style of Messrs. Sha Manmal Misrimal, a partnership firm consisting of the appellant and his two brothers.4. On 19th December, 1968, P.W. 1 J Rama Rao, Preventive Officer, attached to the Customs House, Madras, searched the shop of the appellant in pursuance of a search warrant issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs and recovered from the shop, 221 wris...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1990]186ITR623(Mad)
Arunachalam, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Madras District Social Welfare Association, which is an association founded with the object of purifying public life and also exposing corrupt elements. This application seeks to implead the petitioner as a party respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2854 of 1988 pending in this court. In Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2854 of 1988, the first respondent is the petitioner and the second respondent is the respondent. The second respondent has filed a complaint against the first respondent before the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic offences, Egmore, Madras, alleging that the first respondent who had been granted a loan of Rs. 4,65,000 on April 17, 1986 by the A.I.A.D.M.K. party and admittedy received by her on April 18, 1986, violated Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, the contravention o...
Tag this Judgment!