Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2326; 1987(2)KarLJ201
ORDER1. This is a Revision Petition under section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short) and is directed against the order dated 9-4-1985 made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chitradurga Sub-Division, in MAG. CR 7(D)/1984-85 on his file. 2. The facts, as they appear in the record, necessary to dispose of the present petition, are these : Anjanappa, son of Gidda Hanumanthappa, the petitioner, is a resident of Barageri Colony on Davangere Road in the limits of the City of Chitradurga. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chitradurga Circle, on 4-6-1984 registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No. 55/84 under Section 56(d) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (the Act for short). The allegation in the complaint lodged by the Circle Inspector of Police, on behalf of the State was that the petitioner moving on public roads, frequented by the members of the public was beckoning the members of the public to play Mataka gambling. The further allega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR1672; 1990(1)KarLJ77
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. Sri T.R. Subbanna, learned High Court Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents. Copies of the petition with annexures be furnished to him.2. As this petition can be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order in question by way of Criminal Revision Petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petition is heard for final disposal.3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 15-7-1989 bearing No. EXE. CR. No. 5/1989 Annexure-E passed by the Authorised Officer and the Superintendent of Excise, Bijapur District, Bijapur, confiscating the vehicle bearing No. CNJ.6110 and 264.240 litres of I.M.L. seized by the C.P.I. Jamkhandi vide Excise Cr.No.5/89 dated 15-7-1989 under Section 43A(2) of Karnataka Excise (Second Amendment) Act 1987.4. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 27th October 1989 passed by the Session...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys77; 1963CriLJ306; ILR1962KAR848
H. Hombe Gowda, J.1. These two Criminal Appeals by the State are against two separate orders of acquittal passed by the First Class Magistrate, Virajpet, in S. T. R. 571 of 1961 and S. T. R. 1464 of 1961 respectively and involve the determination of the same question, viz., whether the failure of the Magistrate to give reasons for his order of acquittal in a case tried summarily under Section 264 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amounts to an illegality which vitiates the trial, hence they have been heard together and this judgment will govern both of them.2. In S. T. R. 571 of 1961 the charge against accused was that he was found in possession of two bottles which contained 16 drams of arrack without a permit and had thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1) (a) of the Coorg Prohibition Act. In S. T. R. 1464 of 1961 the accusation against the respondent was that he was found moving in the streets of Virajpet having consumed arrack and in a state of intoxication on 24...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. This petition is tiled seeking for mandamus to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to initiate appropriate action against respondent Nos. 3 to 6 forthwith in respect of Annexures A'. B .D and 'F'. 2. Annexure 'A' is the complaint received by the Police Inspector. High Grounds Polio: Station. Bangalore, regarding violation of law and criminal negligence alleging that the patient was forcibly shifted from Mallige Medical Centre - respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and that the respondents have not taken action in accordance with law. Annexure B' is the complaint filed before the Police Commissioner reiterating the averments made in the complaint - Annexure 'A together with acknowledgement. Annexure C is the representation given to the Health Minister reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Annexure 'D is the letter of the Health Department to the Officer of the District Health and Family Welfare Department. 3. It is averred in the Writ Petition that separate complaint is filed before the Karn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR3088; 2001(3)KarLJ58
ORDER1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-Dr. C.T. Manjunath, a resident of Chikmagalur Town seeks payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five lakhs only) towards compensation for alleged violation of his fundamental rights by respondent-police authorities by arresting him on 2-7-1995, and detaining him in the police and judicial custody till 24-8-1995 and thereafter, filing a charge-sheet before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 202 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code. The other incidental relief sought in the petition is to direct the State Government to frame guidelines for registering and investigating cases by the police authorities by incorporating safeguards in favour of the citizens and further laying down 'principles of Accountability' against Police Officers, who wantonly and deliberately abuse their police powers.2. Petitioner is a qualified medical practitioner, having his private clini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007CriLJ3496; 2007(4)KarLJ619; 2007(4)AIRKarR150
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The first writ petitioner is a lady against whom Crime No. 57 of 2002, which was registered on 30-9-2002 for commission of offences attracting Sections 176, 420, 498 IPC, is pending at the Mudigere police station, Mudigere circle and taluk. The second petitioner is the husband of the first petitioner and also arrayed as an accused in the said crime number.2. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the proceedings in this crime number, which is now on the file of the JMFC, Mudigere, with the police having filed a report before the Magistrate.3. It is the case of the petitioners that an excise case in CC No. 248 of 2000 at the instance of the Sub-inspector of Excise, Mudigere [first respondent herein] is pending against one Yogamma wife of Neelakantegowda for having violated Sections 11 and 14 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [for short, the Act] punishable under Sections 34 and 43A of the Act; that summons had been issued to the said accused person and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD(Cri)860; 1999CriLJ3101; ILR1999KAR3839; 2000(1)KarLJ530
ORDER1. The Inspector of Police, H and B Squad, Corps of Detectives, had filed a charge-sheet against several accused persons including the respondents 1 to 3 on the complaint of this petitioner in Cri. No. 138 of 1992 alleging that all the accused persons were responsible for the custodial death of her son Kamalakar and causing disappearance of evidence, punishable under Sections 120B, 365, 368, 465, 506, 342, 344, 302, 201, 107, 119, 202 read with Section 511 and Section 217 of the IPC. These respondents are accused Nos. 16, 17 and 18. Respondent 1 is the Circle Inspector of Police. Respondent 2 is the Superintendent of Police and respondent 3 is the DIG of Police, Gulbarga. After the case was committed, the learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments on both sides and held that the charge came to be filed without obtaining sanction to prosecute them as required under Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. and therefore, they were discharged. Being aggrieved by that order dated 18-10-1997 passed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Mys152; 1966CriLJ677
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) This is an application presented under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a certain Sejjappa who at one stage, was employed as purchase assistant by the Mysore State Woollen Handloom Co-operative Society, Limited. At a particular stage, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Secretary of that society. But that order of suspension was set aside by the arbitrator to whom the dispute was referred under S. 71 of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act. There were allegations against the petitioner that he had committed an offence of misappropriation. There were also counter allegations by the petitioner that a large sum of money was due to him towards salary and other amounts. The arbitrator found on all these questions in favour of the petitioner and set aside the order of suspension. There was an appeal preferred by the society to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed. (2) Thereafter, an investigation was started by the concerned pol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant158; AIR1959Mys158; 1959CriLJ746
ORDER1. The respondent before me filed Order P. No. 117/1956 before the Court of the District Munsiff of Puttur, South Kanara, under Seections, 195and 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the Court may be pleased to make a complaint against the petitioners before me for offences-said to have been committed by them under Sections 193, 209, 467 and 471 read with Sections 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The allegations in support of this application are that a certain lease deed, on the strength of which Original south No. 391/1952 was filed by the second petitioner before me against the respondent in the District Munsiffs Court of Puttur, was fabricated by the first petitioner in connivance with the other petitioners and that he also made petitioners 3 and 4 to give false evidence in support of it. The suit had been dismissed on the finding that the lease deed in question was false.This petition was filed on 26-10-1956. Notice-returnable 19-11-1956 was issued to the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the petitioner, praying that this Honble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 20.4.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, K.R. Nagar, In C.C.No.220/2003 and the order dated 19.2.2009 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore in Criminal Appeal No.80/2008.)1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner was the accused before the Trial Court in a case for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act, for brevity). It was the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 15th November, 2002 and had promised to repay the amount on or before 30th December, 2002. In discharge of the loan, he had issued a cheque drawn on Navnagar Urban Co-operative Bank, Krishnarajanagar, Myso...
Tag this Judgment!