Court : Karnataka
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE16H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION No.51012/2019 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.52575/2019, 15828/2021, 16081/2021, 16088/2021 (GM-RES) IN WP510122019: BETWEEN: SRI BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA MUTTAGI, S/O SHIVAPPA MUTTAGI, AGED ABOUT37YEARS, R/O MANAGUNDI VILLAGE, DHARWAD TALUK, DHARWAD DIST.-. 580 001. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SRIKANTH PATIL, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)) AND:1. . STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, 2 HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRABHULING K NAVADGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONGWITH SRI H.R. SHOWRI, HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING) SRI S.V. RAJU, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ALONGWITH SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; (VIDEO CONFERENCING) SRI VIVEK S ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings initiated in PCR No.27/2011. on the file of Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore City and quash the order dated 03.12.2011 referring the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, for investigation by Lokayukta Police. 2. I have heard Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy learned counsel for I-respondent and II respondent Sri T.J.Abraham, Party-impression. 3. The relevant averments of complaint as they relate to petitioner are as follows: - (a) In the month of July 2006, one Sri Janardhana Reddy, MIX. said 10 have made allegation that the petitioner has collected bribe of Rs. 150 crores from the Miners and the same was published in "The Hindu" News Paper dated 15"July 2006. (b) The petitioner has approved the Mining Lease illegally in favour of M/s. Shree Sai Venkateshwara Minerals in respect of 550 acres of land in Jog. Thimmappagudi. Vhavihalli. NEB Range. Sandur Taluk. Bellarv Di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR495; 2008(3)KarLJ117; 2008(1)KCCRSN45; 2008(2)AIRKarR299(DB)
ORDER1. The question of law that is required to he considered in these petitions is as to whether the remand of an accused under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure comes to an end as soon as a charge sheet is filed and if there is delay in the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence, whether the intervening period from the time the charge sheet is placed until the cognizance is taken amounts to illegal detention.2. These four petitions have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of bail. During arguments in Criminal Petition No. 27/2005 one of the contentions raised was that as held by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Justice Smt. Manjula Chellur) in Devindrappa and Anr. v. State of Karnataka 2004 CRI. L.J. 1506 once the charge sheet is filed, period of remand under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure comes to an end and in the absence of specific order of remand under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Mys239; 1966CriLJ1030; (1966)1MysLJ276
ORDER(1) The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order made by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(2) The properties bearing C.T.S. Nos. 2094 and 2097 are adjacent to each other. C.T.S. No. 2097 belongs to the 1st respondent-accused. C.T.S. No. 2097 belonged to one Hampavva who died in the year 1958. The petitioner and his adoptive mother Baslingavva claimed succession to the suit house after Hampavva's death. One Virupayya asserted his claim to the said house. The dispute was therefore, referred to a panchayat. I directed Virupayya to go to a Court of law and have his right established therein, and in the meanwhile the house was to be in possession of the Panchayat. But, Virupayya died and one Chandrashekarayya filed a suit for possession of the house against the present petitioner but the said suit was withdrawn on November 4, 1960. On November 15, 1960, Andanayya the petitioner got possession of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR494
ORDER1. This matter is posted for orders on office objection regarding the requirement of filing affidavit in support of the interim application in criminal revision petition filed in the High Court as required under Rule 2 of Chapter X of the Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Rules').2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection raised by the office is not maintainable as the petitioner being an accused, he cannot be compelled to swear. In view of the provisions of the Oaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter called the Act), no oath can be administered to the accused and as such there is a clear bar for filing of affidavit in criminal matters. As similar type of objection has been raised in many of the criminal cases and the same explanation is given, in order to settle the controversy, I requested the Members of the Bar to address arguments on this point. Sri S.G. Bhagavan, learned Senior Counsel, leading the arguments contended that as per Section 4(2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1967)IILLJ619Kant; (1965)1MysLJ742
1. The sole point that arises for my decision on the strength of the preliminary objection raised by the respondent is whether the petition to revise the order passed by the District Judge, Bangalore, under S. 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is tenable under S. 435 read with S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The facts material for the purpose of the decision of this case are not in dispute. The petitioner filed an application (Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 15 of 1962) before the Second City Magistrate, Bangalore, for recovery of Rs. 3,860.99 from the respondent on the ground the he had been in the service of the respondent as a foreman and that the amount was due in respect of various items of claims enumerated in the petition. That petition came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as also on merits. The petitioner then approached the District Judge, Bangalore, in M.A. No. 46 of 1963. The learned District Judge held that the appellant had not proved any of hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. Crl. P. No. 1467/2006 is filed by M/s. B.P.L. Ltd., (Company for short) and Crl. P. No. 1465/2006 is filed by the persons who are said to have been incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business seeking the relief of quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 25149/2005, Similarly, Crl. P. No. 1464/2006 is filed by the Company and Crl. P. No. 1463/2006 is filed by the persons who are said to have been incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business seeking the relief of quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 2688/2003. M/s. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited is the common respondent in all the four petitions.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioning Company is a public limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent gave short-term loans to the Company. The cheques dt 10.07.2002, 10.07.2002, 27.06.2002, 10.07.2002, 10.07.2002 and 27.06.2002 for Rs. 41,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Mys12; 1968CriLJ70; ILR1967KAR1136; (1967)2MLJ29
ORDER(1) This reference is made under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Sessions Judge, Bidar. Briefly stated, the facts are: Gowramma who is respondent No.2 in this reference obtained an order of maintenance under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the rate of Rs.20/- per month of 23rd March 1964. Subsequently she filed a civil suit and obtained a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month on 30th March 1966. After the decree of the civil court an application under section 488 (3) was made to the criminal court for enforcement of the order of maintenance at Rs.20/- per month passed by it. In that application Gowramma claimed a maintenance from February 1966 to end of April 1966. Objection had been filed on behalf of the first respondent that the order of maintenance made under section 488 should be cancelled under Section 489 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate overruled the objection of Respondent No. 1. He file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1970Mys305; 1970CriLJ1584
ORDERM. Santosh, J.1. This petition arises out of proceedings taken under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The 1st petitioner before this Court claims to be the wife of the respondent and the petitioners 2 and 3 are said to be her minor children born to the respondent. The 1st petitioner claimed a total sum of Rs. 150/- per month towards maintenance of herself and her 3 minor children. After the enquiry the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. The petitioners challenge the correctness of the said order passed by the learned Magistrate in this revision petition.2. Sri Biazuddin, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the learned Magistrate, after having accepted the evidence let in by the petitioners, was wrong in dismissing the petition. He has pointed out that the learned Magistrate has also rejected the evidence let in on behalf of the respondent, but yet strangely dismissed the petition. The learned Magistrate has also given a finding t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1972CriLJ1212
ORDERM. Nesargi, J.1. The petitioner, who was A-l in C.C. No. 841 of 1969 on the file of the II Magistrate, Bangalore has been convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo S. I. for further period of one month. In Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1970. the I Additional Sessions Judge. Bangalore, has confirmed the conviction. but modified the sentence to one of fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to simple imprisonment for one month.2. Originally, wife and daughter of the petitioner were A-2 and A-3 in the said case. They were acquitted in the trial Court. The prosecution case is that somewhere in the year 1962, A-2 executed a mortgage deed in the form of a sale-deed in favour of P. W. 1 the complainant and mortgaged her property a house. On the very day P. W. 1 executed a deed binding himself liable to re-convey the property on the payment ...
Tag this Judgment!