Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1850
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge Shimoga confirming on appeal Under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar, and thereby sanctioning the disposal of property in favour of the complainant.2. The accused one B. S. Tookappa is the proprietor of a rice mill known as Sri Veerabhadreswara Rice and Flour Mill situate at the village Benavalli of Hosanagar Taluk. He was appointed as sub-agent by the Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Hosanagar (hereinafter to be referred as the Co-operative Society). The Co-operative Society was engaged in procuring levy of paddy from the growers through the Food Corporation of India. After the levy was complete, the Co-operative Society used to hand over the paddy to the petitioner-accused for keeping the same in their godown for which charges were to be paid. Upon receiving directions from the Co-operative So...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2007KAR3040; 2007(6)KarLJ417; 2007(3)KCCR1751; 2007(5)AIRKarR37; 2007CriLJNOC839.
ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the issuance of process by the learned trial Judge following a private complaint lodged by the respondent herein. Aggrieved by the cognizance taken by the trial Court, the petitioners are before this Court in these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Brief facts are to the defect that, the respondent herein filed a private complaint in PCR.No. 886/2006 before the 5th Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and the allegations made in the said complaint are to the effect that the petitioners herein have caused untoward hardship and harassment to the complainant and several false cases were registered against the complainant and all those cases ended in acquittal. It is also aliened in the complaint that the Police department in general has not performed its duties properly and the complainant was brought to the Police Station and was abused in front of several persons and was even sent to jail....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2006CriLJ3143; 2007(6)KarLJ637
ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. This revision petition was dismissed for default by order dated 6-3-2006, LA. II/2006 has been filed for re-calling the said order. The reason assigned for the failure of the Counsel for the revision petitioner to appear on that day is non-receipt of cause list of 6-3-2006. Accepting the said explanation, J.A. II/2006 is allowed and recalling the order dated 6-3-2006, the revision petition is restored to file.2. This revision petition has been preferred challenging the conviction of the revision petitioner for offences punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304-A of the IPC and consequent sentence awarded by the Learned JMFC, II Court, Belgaum, in order dated 12-6-2001 in C.C. No. 458/2000. The appeal preferred by the revision petitioner in Criminal Appeal No. 57/2001 having been dismissed by the Learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, dated 17-3-2003, this revision petition has been preferred.3. On 20-4-2000 at 00.30 hours, truck bearing No. MYL 4586 of whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2001Kant149; 2001(4)KarLJ104
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 6-6-1998, passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bagalkot, on I.A. No. XI, filed in original suit number O.S. 74 of 1995.By I.A. No. XI, the plaintiff sought the direction against defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 10 to pay the stamp duty and penalty, as provided under Section 34 of the Indian Stamp Act, before its admission and recording of evidence.2. The objection was filed by the defendants contending that defendants are not enforcing the award, and they are using it as defence. Hence, there is no question of payment of stamp duty, and that the document at least can be admitted for collateral purpose of severance of status of the joint family.The Trial Court considered the contentions, and held that the document, marked as Ex. D. 20, shows it requires the payment of stamp duty. The document is styled, as decision of the arbitrator, and certain shares had been allotted to the parties and the well, pumpset have been k...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed by the Higher Police Chief Director and Karnataka Chief Examiner of the Jail in order dt.3.8.2006 vide Annex-B1 and order passed by the Karnataka State Governor and its Chief Secretary, under Administrative Dept. (Jail and Cinema) order dt.3.8.2006, and Govt. order dt.14.8.2006, vide Annex-B1 where in at serial No.89, the name of the 3rdrespondent Manjunath is found, in the interest of justice and equity.)1. The son of a victim of brutal murder, is crying for justice, and is knocking at the doors of this Court, challenging the State action, of granting pardon to the perpetuator of the said heinous crime who is roaming in the streets of his Village, and wants to know, “is it justice?”.2. The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Higher Police Chief Director and Karnataka Chief Examiner of the Jail in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR676
ORDERPatil, J.1. A question of law common to all these cases arises for decision. Therefore they are heard together and proposed to be disposed of by common order.2. AH the three cases arise from Ramdurg Police Station. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners is one punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by reason of the contravention of Clauses of the Edible Oil Dealers Licencing Order 1977. In one case, it is said, the accused petitioner was carrying on business without licence. In the other cases, the accused-petitioners had not complied with the conditions of the licence. The alleged offence is said to have come to the notice on 5-8-1983. All the three accused, it is not disputed, were also arrested on the same day and were released on bail. Offences being triable as summons case by a Special Judge as provided under Section 12AA(1)(f) of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, the investigation had to be completed and cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1969CriLJ757; (1968)2MysLJ511
ORDER1. The above revision petition arises out of the order passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8 of 1966 regarding the disposal of scooter which was seized from the petitioner, to the second respondent-complainant Dr. Ajit Kumar Singh or Bowring Hospital.2. Facts in brief are these:--3. The scooter in question belonged to the second respondent (complainant). On 3-9-1965, it was lost at the Bowring Hospital at Bangalore. Immediately after the scooter was lost, the second respondent filed a complaint before the Commercial Street Police who registered a case for an offence of theft in Crime No. 262/65. Investigation was being conducted by the police of the Commercial Street Police Station. In the meanwhile, on 10-11-1965, the scooter was found deserted near Viranchipuram. The police of Viranchipuram found the scooter abandoned on the road and seized it and produced it before the Tahsildar and Administrative Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(4)KarLJ583
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These applications filed under Section 538(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, are disposed of by this common order as they involve common questions of law and fact.2. Applications have been filed averring that the Company has been ordered to be wound up by an order passed by this Court in company petition referred to in the applications and thereafter, the Official Liquidator attached to this Court became the Liquidator of the said Company by virtue of Section 449 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and thereafter, the Official Liquidator issued notice to the Ex-Directors to hand over the books of account and records of the Company. However, the Ex-Directors and Officers of the Company, who are arrayed as respondents did not produce the account books or the documents as required by the Official Liquidator and wherefore, the applications are filed seeking for a direction to the respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Cri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR1460
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Government Order dated 12-11-1984 bearing No. HD 87 PRR 84, produced as Annexure-E. He has also sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to release him prematurely.2. 1) The petitioner along with four other accused was convicted on 18-8-1978 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 307 read with Section 149; and Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1977 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months, one year, 5 years and one year respectively on each of the aforesaid counts. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. 2) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of convictions and sentences, the petitioner al...
Tag this Judgment!