Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-20-1951
Reported in : AIR1952Kant4; AIR1952Mys4; (1953)31MysLJ162
ORDERMallappa, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order in Miscellaneous No. 16 of 47-48 dropping the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that both the parties are absent.2. The proceedings were instituted on 18-11-1947 and it is in March 1951 that the proceedings were dropped on the ground referred to above. A perusal of the order sheet shows that the case was not taken up as the Judge was busy with other cases or for the reason that one or the other of the lawyers wanted an adjournment. It is unfortunate that these proceedings were allowed to be dragged on for about three years and it is equally unfortunate that the learned Magistrate should have found a way of disposing of the case in a summary manner, particularly when the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to drop the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. as he has done.3. This case is typical of a good number of cases under Section 145 Criminal P.C. that are pending for a numb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-07-1951
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
Decided on : Nov-08-1951
Reported in : AIR1952Kant88; AIR1952Mys88
Mallappa, J.1. This petition is under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India for the issue of a certificate by this Court that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court.2. The petitioner, T.A. Bashiruddin Ahmed, was convicted of offences under Section 161 I. P. C. and Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948, and his son the second accused in the case was convicted of abetting the said offences. On appeal, the convictions of both the persons under both the Sections have been confirmed but the sentence in the case of the first accused is reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment for each offence, sentences being ordered to run concurrently. However, the sentence of fine with respect to the offence under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is set aside but with respect to the offence under Section 161 I.P.C., is confirmed.3. The petitioner was the Rent Controller, an officer of the grade ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-03-1951
Reported in : AIR1952Kant42; AIR1952Mys42
Venkataramaiya, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the 1st and 2nd accused respectively against their convictions in Bangalore Sessions Case No. 6 of 1950-51. Accused 1 was charged with committing offences under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948, for having received on the night of 13th October 1948 from one Sanjivappa Rs. 400/- as illegal gratification in order to show favour to him in four cases pending before him (1st Accused) as House Rent Controller. The 2nd accused was charged with the abetment of the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty and sentenced Accused 1 to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each of the said offences with a direction that the sentences do run concurrently. As regards the 2nd accused he ordered under Section 562 of the Code of Criminal procedure that he should be released on bail on his executing a bond in a sum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-17-1951
Reported in : AIR1952Kant34; AIR1952Mys34; (1953)31MysLJ97
ORDER1. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 498, Penal Code, by the First Class Magistrate, Ramanagaram, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. On appeal, the conviction and sentence have been confirmed. It is against that judgment, the revision to this Court is preferred by the petitioner.2. Both the lower Courts have considered the evidence in detail and reached the conclusion. A few salient features relating to the case may be stated in order to test the appreciation of evidence. Shivalingappa, the petitioner, is alleged to have enticed away one Nanjamma, the wife of the complainant, and detained her at Bangalore with intent to have illicit intercourse with her. The complainant, the husband of the said Nanjamma, who is examined as P. W. 8 has sworn to the fact that the accused was frequenting his house and talking to his wife in familiar terms; in consequence thereof he had expressly prohibited him from visiting his hous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-31-1951
Reported in : AIR1952Kant55; AIR1952Mys55; (1952)30MysLJ97
ORDER1. The Police of Parasurampur, Chitaldrug District, prosecuted the petitioner under Rule 17(1) read with Rule 19 of the Articles of Food Acquisition (Harvest) Order 1949 framed under Rr. 75 and 81 of the Defence of India Rules as applied to Mysore and continued by the Supplies, Service.? and Miscellaneous Provisions Act XX of 1947 for securing and maintaining food supplies. On 20-1-1950, the petitioner (accused) is said to have been driving a double bullock cart with seven bags of paddy in it without a permit to transport the paddy. The paddy was seized and delivered to the Government Depot at the control rate and the price fetched was deposited; the cart and bullocks were also taken possession of by the Police. A charge-sheet was placed before the Special First Class Magistrate, Chitaldrug. The accused admitted the circumstances and pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-. In addition, the learned Magistrate made an order directing that the price ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-28-1951
Reported in : AIR1952Kant39; AIR1952Mys39
ORDER1. One Babasab was coining on a bicycle when he was stopped by the police near the Municipal Toll Gate at Chikmagalur and was found to be carrying six brandy bottles in a cloth bag tied to the handle bar. He was thereupon prosecuted for an offence under Section 4-1 (a), Clauses (2) and (3) of the Mysore Prohibition Act XXXVII of 1948 before the Munsiff-Magistrate, Chickmagalur. He was convicted on a plea of guilty and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 30/-. The Munsiff Magistrate further ordered that ,the bottles of brandy and the cycle which had been marked as M.O. 1 should be confiscated to Government. This order was passed on 6-11-1950. On the same day the Petitioner one C.N. Hassan Khan presented in Court an application in which he stated that the cycle M.O. 1 belonged to him alone, that he had merely entrusted it to the accused to be delivered at his house, that in the evening when he returned home he learnt on enquiry that the accused was being prosecuted and that the bicycle had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-24-1951
Reported in : AIR1952Kant102; AIR1952Mys102
ORDER1. The petitioner was surety for appearance of the Accused in C. C. No. 2699 of 50-51 on the file of the City Magistrate, Bangalore. Owing to repeated absence of the accused the case had to be adjourned a number ol times. Warrants issued to secure his attendance were returned unserved & proclamation was ordered. The accused then appeared but, after prosecution witnesses were examined, charge was framed and the witnesses were summoned for further cross-examination as desired by him again absented himself with the result that the further proceedings were inevitably postponed. Oil 7-3-1951 the Court ordered issue of Nonbailable warrant to the accused and notice to the surety to show cause why the bond should not be forfeited. On the next date the surety alone turned up. The learned Magistrate after noting that the surety was unable to explain as to why the accused was absent made an order that the bail bond for Rs. 200/- executed by him was forfeited in entirety. The appeal preferred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-07-1951
Reported in : AIR1951Kant127; AIR1951Mys127
ORDERBalakrishnaiya, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Magistrate of Chickmagalur passed in Cr. R. P. No. 3 of 1950-51.2. The facts leading to the case, briefly stated, are as under: One Marigowda filed a complaint on 30-12-1949 before the District Magistrate for assault in an attempt to extract a bribe of Rs. 300/-against a police constable and a Sub-Inspector, the petitioner before this Court. The District Magistrate took cognizance of the case and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant. As per the request in para 12 of the complaint petition to direct the medical authorities to examine the complainant as they were alleged to have declined to issue a medical certificate, a direction was sent to examine the complainant which was done on 30-12-1949 and a medical certificate regarding the injuries said to have been sustained by the complainant was produced before the District Magistrate on 3-1-1960. Thereupon, the District Magistrate acting under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-10-1951
Reported in : AIR1952Kant85; AIR1952Mys85
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The Petitioner has applied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. He has stated in his affidavit that he was arrested by the Police of Davangere, apparently in connection with some criminal case, on 22-1-51 and remanded to Police custody. He was granted bail by the First Class Magistrate who later on cancelled it on the application of the Public Prosecutor. He was then committed and took his trial before the Sessions Judge, Shimoga Division, in Chitaldrug Sessions Case No. 8/50-51. The Sessions Judge released him on bail on 24-2-51, and on 25-2-51 he was rearrested by the Police of Davangere. He was ultimately acquitted in the Sessions case on 8-3-51. He was served on 8-3-51 with a copy of an order of detention dated 5-3-51 together with grounds of detention and, subsequently, on 12-3-51 with the details of grounds for detention.2. The order of detention which ...
Tag this Judgment!