Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-05-1965
Reported in : AIR1965Mys274; [1966]36CompCas562b(Kar); 1965CriLJ654; (1965)1MysLJ265
ORDER(1) The petitioner was appointed voluntary liquidator of a company called Rural Commercial Syndicate Ltd., by a special resolution of the Company dated 2nd November 1958. Under S. 551 of the Companies Act of 1956 he had to file statements mentioned in the section with the Registrar of Companies periodically. It appears he was filing such statements regularly until he committed default in statements relating to the period 2-5-1963 to 1-11-1963 which was due to be filed with the Registrar on or before 1-1-1964. After issuing notice to him to rectify the omission, the Registrar instituted criminal prosecution against him before the First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore.(2) The petitioner admitted his default and pleaded guilty, but placed certain circumstances before the Magistrate on the strength of which he prayed that he be pardoned. It also appears that the necessary statement was filed by him after the presentation of the complaint but before the Magistrate came to di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-20-1965
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
Decided on : Apr-16-1965
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
Decided on : Jul-06-1965
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
Decided on : Jun-10-1965
Reported in : AIR1967Kant81; AIR1967Mys81; (1966)2MysLJ767
1. The petitioner was ordered by the Munsiff Magistrate of Bhalki to pay maintenance of Rs. 20 per month to his wife the respondent. The petitioner failed to comply with this order. The wife made an application under Section 488(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the petitioner had failed to pay maintenance as ordered by the court for one year from 2nd August 1962 to 2nd August 1963. The petitioner's counsel filed an application requesting the court to grant two months' time to make the payment. This application was opposed by the wife on the ground that in spite of the warrant issued by the Court, he had evaded payment. The Magistrate refused to grant time to the petitioner and passed the following order : 'Respondent's application for time is rejected. He should be kept in the prison till he pays the entire arrears standing due. He is committed to prison.' Against this order a revision petition was filed in the court of Session at Bidar in Criminal Revision Petition No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-28-1965
Reported in : AIR1966Mys194; 1966CriLJ917; (1965)2MysLJ498
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) At about 3-30 P.M. on August 27, 1962 Keshav, a head constable in Bidar town, transmitted of Police P.W.6, that Abdul Nabi on the invitation of a young woman Suseela, entered her house. Keshav stated that within ten or fifteen minutes the Superintendent of Police along with a Sub-Inspector, a lady constable and two panch witnesses arrived near the house in a van. It was said that when they entered the house they found one of the rooms bolted from inside and Suseela and Nabi came out of that room on their being asked to open the door. Suseela is accused 1 and Nabi is accused 2, and the charge brought against them before the District Magistrate was that they were guilty of an offence of prosecution carried on within 200 yards of an educational institution punishable under S.7(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 which will be referred to as the Act. (2) Five others, all of whom were women and who were in State of Mysore part of the ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-20-1965
Reported in : AIR1966Mys173; 1966CriLJ779; (1965)2MysLJ512
ORDER(1) The sole question that arise for decision in this reference by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar is whether a husband can raise a plea that his wife has been living in adultery since the date of the Order for maintenance, during the course of the proceedings for enforcement of the order of whether he should file a separate application for cancellation of the order.(2) The facts leading to this reference are not in dispute. The respondent Shantadevi filed an application on 25-2-1962 against her husband Shivasankar for maintenance on the ground that her husband had neglected and refused to maintain her by driving her out of house. While denying this allegation, the husband pleaded that his wife had been living in adultery and that she was not entitled to any maintenance. On the date of hearing the husband remained absent and an ex parte order allowing maintenance at Rs. 30 per month was passed in favour of the wife on 13-8-1963. The husband's application for setting a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-24-1965
Reported in : AIR1966Mys71; 1966CriLJ267; (1965)1MysLJ365
ORDER(1) An important question whether the Court has power to grant what is called 'anticipatory bail' arises for consideration in this revision case. (2) The Tahsildar, Bhalki, lodged a complaint on 23-1-1964 with the police at Dhanura that while the Patwari of Malchapur was collecting revenue, the respondents before this Court, abused the Patwari and assaulted him with shoes and thereby obstructed the public servant from discharging his duties. The police registered a case against the respondents under S. 353 I.P.C. and sent the first information report to the Magistrate. (3) Fearing that they might be arrested by the police, the respondents appeard before the Firs Class Magistrate, Bhalki, on 20-3-1964 and made an application praying that they might be released on bail. This application appears to have been opposed by the Prosecutor. The learned Magistrate passed an order on the same day as follows: 'Accused persons are released on Bail on their executing P and S bonds in the sum of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-14-1965
Reported in : AIR1967Mys59; 1967CriLJ559
1. The Appellant who was the accused in Kolar Sessions Case No. 6 of 1961, has been convicted of the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonment. Hence this appeal.2. The Order of conviction and sentence which is challenged in this appeal by the appellant is made by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division (Camp: Kolar), on the re-trial of the accused.3. The conviction of the accused in the previous trial was set aside by this Court and a re-trial was ordered since it took the view that the irregularities committed by the prosecution vitiated the trial and conviction of the accused was held to be bad in law.4. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was a clerk in the Kanyakaparameswari Co-operative Society, Ltd., Kolar; in that Society even the non-members could deposit the money and accordingly P. W. 6 Syed Murthuza a non-member deposited Rs. 800 in the said Society; after som...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-1965
Reported in : AIR1966Kant1; AIR1966Mys1; ILR1965KAR211; (1965)1MysLJ329
Narayana Pai, J. (1) The appellant filed before the court of the civil Judge at Chitradurga Miscellaneous Petition No. 97 of 1962 against his wife under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree for judicial separation. The said petition was filed on 16th October 1962. The respondent appeared on 22nd December 1962 and was granted time to file her objections till 19-1-1963. After receiving her objections on the latter date, the matter was posted for evidence to 23rd February 1963. As the Judge was on casual leave on the said date, it was adjourned to 30th March 1963. On the date, it was adjourned at the request of the appellant petitioner's counsel. Four similar adjournments followed at the request of the petitioner's counsel until on 1-2-1964 the Civil Judge came to passes the following order.'Petitioner by Sri. N. S. A. Respondent by Sri. B.M. Evidence: Sri. N.S.A. prays for permission to retire for want of instructions. Petitioner called out and absent. Respondent by ...
Tag this Judgment!