Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Mys125; 1966CriLJ555; (1965)2MysLJ193
ORDER(1) The question for decision in this revision petition is, whether a Sessions Judge acts illegally if he accepts the express acquiescence of the accused appellant in the Order of conviction appealed against, while disposing of an appeal under S. 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? (2) The circumstances under which the contention has been raised are not in dispute. The petitioner Smt. Parvathama Hiremath is the Publisher, Printer and Editor of a Kannada Weekly newspaper by name 'Veeramathe'. In the issue dated 26-1-1959 she published an article against the respondent who, according to the evidence, is a reputed dealer in watcher and clocks in the City of Bangalore. The article contained serious imputations against the business-morale and integrity of the respondent. It alleged that he had been evading taxes and It alleged that he had been evading taxes and involved in fifteen cases pending against him. It concluded with an announcement that 'Veeramathe' had appointed her own C....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ4526; II(1999)DMC422; ILR1999KAR1676; 1998(5)KarLJ357
ORDER1. The only question that arises in this revision petition under Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code is as to whether Section 240, Criminal Procedure Code permits an accused to answer the charge through his Counsel.2. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, and after hearing the prosecution and the accused, has formed an opinion that, there is a ground presuming that the accused in the case, including the present two respondents, have committed offences punishable under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. What remains is, framing of the charge and to read it over and to explain to the accused and to ask the accused whether they plead guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as required by Section 240, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]91CompCas556(Kar); 1997CriLJ4187; 1997(3)KarLJ422
A.M. Farooq, J.1. This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and it is directed against the order dated September 11, 1996, in C.C. No. 1254 of 1995 on the file of the learned Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings and discharging him. The petitioner is shown as the accused in the criminal case before the trial court and the respondent is the complainant before the trial court. 3. A complaint has been filed against the petitioner alleging an offence under section 630 of the Companies Act. The complaint has been lodged on the ground that the petitioner was one of the directors of the company and he was granted the premises which is the subject-matter of the proceedings during his tenure as a director of the company and in spite of his term being over, the petitioner has not vacated the premises in question, hence, the complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act. Under the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF AUGUST2016BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION No.21782 OF2014(GM-RES) CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION No.38450 OF2014(GM-RES) WRIT PETITION No.38451 OF2014(GM-RES) WRIT PETITION No.38498 OF2014(GM-RES) CRIMINAL PETITION No.7166 OF2015IN W.P.No.21782 OF2014Sri. C. Mruthyunjayaswamy, Son of Late Channappa Shastre, Aged about 51 years, Presently working as Chief Engineer, National Highways, K.R.Circle, Bangalore 560 001. (By Shri V. Lakshminarayana, Senior Advocate for Smt. Shilpa Rani, Advocate) PETITIONER2Office of Lokayuktha, Represented by its Registrar, M.S.Buildings, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore 560 001. State by Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Bangalore City Division, Bangalore 560 001. Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of Lokayuktha. AND:1. 2. 3.4. (By Shri Venkatesh P.Dalwai, Advocte for Respondents 1 to 3; Shri. G. Devaraj, Advocate for Respondent No.4) The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE23D DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020 PRESENT THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1459/2019 BETWEEN: GOVINDARAJU @ KUTTI S/O BALA, AGED ABOUT22YEARS, R/AT NEAR MARIYAMMA TEMPLE, 3RD CROSS, SATHYANAGAR, MARUTHISEVANAGAR, POST, BANGALORE-560033. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI RAMACHANDRA R NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANASWADI POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. RESPONDENT (BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP) 2 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION3742) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED1403.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN S.C. No.527/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMEN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1952Kant37; AIR1952Mys37
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Chickballapur, refusing to stay proceedings in C. C. No. 1536 of 50-51 on the file of his Court pending decision of the matter in dispute between the complainant before the Police and the accused, in O. S. 263 of 50-51 on the file of the Munsiff of Doddaballapur. According to the criminal case the accused have committed theft by cutting and removing some timber. The case of the complainant before the Police is that he purchased them from one Hanumantha Reddy. One of the accused has filled a suit claiming the timber as his having purchased the same from not only Hanumantha Reddy but also his two brothers. The complainant before the police has in the civil suit denied the genuineness of the document in favour of the principal accused and claims to have purchased the timber from Hanumantha Reddy. Thus it has to be stated that the principal accused in his plaint admits his cutting and remov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR2589; 2009(6)KarLJ205
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 27(2) and (3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter far short referred to as the Act') as well as the procedure followed by the District and State Consumer Forum in issuing arrest warrants against them. Therefore, all these Writ Petitions axe taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. However, for proper appreciation of the rival contentions, the facts pleaded in W.P. No. 700/2008 and the statement of objections filed in W.P. No. 18465/ 2006 by the Union of India which was adopted by them as the statement of objections in all the Writ Petitions, is set out as under.2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm. It is in the business of land development and construction. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the land owners for development of land bearing Sy. No. 4848 and 2878 at 6th Main, V.V. Puram, Devaraja Moha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(1)ALT(Cri)430; 1999CriLJ927; I(1999)DMC565; ILR1998KAR3068; 1998(5)KarLJ522
ORDER1. This criminal revision petition has been placed before us to decide whether the order passed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (henceforth in brief referred to for convenience as 'the Act') by the Family Court has to be challenged either as a civil revision petition or as a criminal revision petition and has to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court under the provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. Such a situation had occurred before the learned Single Judge of this Court in view of the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Sathyabhama v Ramachandran, wherein it was held that for the purpose of Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act (as amended in 1991), the Family Court acted as a Criminal Court and not as a Civil Court and in that view of the matter, the revision petitions to challenge the orders under the said provision of law has to be registered as revision petition (Family Court) liable to be disposed of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR110; 1998(1)KarLJ420
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, Mr. P.V. Singri, allowing the application filed by the accused under Section 210, Criminal Procedure Code and staying further investigation of the case referred to by the Court. Undisputed facts are these --That the petitioner has presented a private complaint under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 477A read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The complaint was made against its own employees including the accused.2. The learned Magistrate has referred the said complaint for investigation acting under Section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code. The J.P. Nagar Police on receipt of this complaint, referred to by Court for investigation, registered a criminal case in Crime No. 4 of 1996 for the above said offences and the FIR was duly submitted to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD(Cri)209; 1998CriLJ3639; ILR1998KAR2342; 1998(4)KarLJ568
ORDERY. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. Sri Basaveshwara, a great mystic saint, poet, philosopher, religious leader and social reformer of 12th Century, who was known as 'Basavanna' affectionately and out of reverence by his followers was born in Bagewadi in Bijapur District, Karnataka State. Akkanagamma was his elder sister and a saintly woman. Her son Channabasaveshwara was a great social reformer and the preacher of Veerashaivism and Basava philosophy. The family was one of great social reformers working with untiring zeal to promote equality in Hindu Society at that time. His life and teachings have been a source of inspiration to millions of people in South India. He revolted and fought against the rituals, superstitions and distinctions of caste and creed encouraged by certain decadent sections of Hinduism, at a time when the society was dissipated by a system of hierarchy of castes and creeds, and rituals which held their sway. He brought about a social revolution to restore the status of man...
Tag this Judgment!