Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-11-1966
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and one Chandrashekarayya filed a suit for possession of the house against the present petitioner but the said suit was withdrawn on November 4, 1960.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
Decided on : Oct-07-1966
Reported in : AIR1968Kant38; AIR1968Mys38; (1967)1MysLJ87
ORDER(1) These petitions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are directed against the common order passed by the District Judge, Bangalore under Section 413 of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act,1949 (hereinafter called the Act). When they came up for admission before Govinda Bhat J., his Lordship felt that the question of their maintainability should first be decided and accordingly ordered a notice to be issued to the respondent. The question of maintainability depends upon whether the impugned order was passed by the District Court or by the District Judge as persona designata.(2) The petitioners who are occupants of different shops belonging to the respondent Corporation were served with notices demanding monthly fee of Rs. 80 from two petitioners occupying corner shops with Rs. 75 per month from the rest. These demands were made with effect from 1-6-1962. They filed various petitions (Miscellaneous Cases Nos.148to169of1963 and164of1964) under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-07-1966
Reported in : 1966CriLJ1280
ORDERH. Hombe Gowda, C.J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Yadgir in Criminal Case No. 4.3.1963 convicting the nine petitioners under Section 5 of the Hyderabad Gambling Act and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of the payment of fine to suffer S.I. for two weeks.2. The nine petitioners and another person by name Nazimul Saquib (A. 10) were prosecuted by the Sub-Inspector of Police of yadgir for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Hyderabad Gambling Act.The charge against the petitioners is that they were found playing a game of cards with money for stakes in a common gambling house bearing No. 1, 2, 92 situated Station area in Yadgir town at about 10 P.M. on 9.7.1962. The charge against A. 10 Nazimul Saquib was that he was the occupier of the premises which was used as a common gambling house and had knowingly allowed the petitioners to indulge in gambling in the said house. All the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-04-1966
Reported in : AIR1966Kant271; AIR1966Mys271
Tukol, J.(1) These four references have been made by the Sessions Judge, Gulbarga to quash the orders of commitment under Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in each of the cases, on the ground that the respondent or the respondents committed to his Court for trial have to be tried under the Mysore Children Act, 1964 and that the order of commitment in each of the cases in contrary to law. None of the respondents in any of the cases appeared after due notice. We therefore requested Mr. Malimath to appear as Amicus curiae.(2) There is no dispute that none of the respondents in these cases has attained the age of 16 years and is therefore a child as defined as Section 4(1)(f) of the Mysore Children Act, 1964. The sole ground on which the learned Sessions Judge has sought for the quashing of the order of commitment in each case is that the respondent or respondents are wholly triable by a Juvenile Court under the provisions of the Mysore Children Act, 1964 and that the order of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-02-1966
Reported in : AIR1966Mys231; 1966CriLJ1024; (1966)1MysLJ433
ORDER(1) This is a petition under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State for transfer of Sessions Cases 43/8/63 and 1/8/64 from the file of the court of Session Raichur, to any other Sessions Court. These two sessions cases are said to be in the nature of a case and a counter-case and were therefore being posted together with a certain interval. The circumstances leading to the filing of this transfer petition relate however only to what happened at the trial of Sessions Case No. 43/8/63.(2) Although what may be called pleadings in this case have been long and argumentative, the facts which are really germane to the disposal of this petition and the controversies relating thereto fall within very small compass. A decision on the truth or otherwise of those facts and their relevancy to the prayer or legal value from the point of view of Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will conclude this petition one way or the other. I do not therefore propose to deal w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-07-1966
Reported in : AIR1966Mys311; 1966CriLJ1291; ILR1966KAR518; (1966)1MysLJ639
Bhimiah, J.(1) This Revision Petition came up before Gopivallabha Iyengar, J. sitting singly. His Lordship has referred the same to a Division Bench of e Court doubting the correctness of the decision of e Court reported in AIR 1958 Mys 128, in view of the decisions in Ishar v. Soma Devi, , Mt. Dhan Kaur v. Niranjan Singh, and in Iqbal Unnissa Begum v. Habib Pasha, : AIR1961AP445 . His Lordship has also formulated two questions of law for decision by the Division Bench They are:'(1) Whether the proviso following sub-section (3) of section 488 governs only sub-section (3) or whether it governs also sub-section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (2) That even if the proviso referred to above governs sub-section (1) of Section 488 also, whether it would be necessary to prove neglect or refusal on the part of the husband in cases where the husband has contracted a second marriage with another wife or keeps a mistress'(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case necessary for the disposal of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-21-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Mys79; 1967CriLJ635; ILR1966KAR961; (1966)1MysLJ618
ORDER1. This is a reference made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sessions Judge of Bijapur at the instance of the applicant accused Krishnacharya Appacharya Jahagirdar recommending that the conviction of the said applicant by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indi-Sindgi, in Criminal Case No. 75 of 1965 be set aside.2. The original allegation against him was that while he was driving the State Transport bus No. MYF 4039 on 22-1-1965 at about 8-35 P. M., on the Hippargi Talikot Road, the bus did not have either the rear lamp burning or the destination board properly illuminated and that the applicant (driver) did not permit a police jeep No. MYJ 19 to overtake it as he should have. On these allegations, three accusations were made against him viz., contravention of Rule 181(1)(c)(i) and Rule 181(4) of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules and Section 78 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Magistrate acquitted him of the third accusation, viz., failure to permit the j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-19-1966
Reported in : AIR1966Mys241; 1966CriLJ1033; (1968)2MysLJ421
ORDER(1) The petitioner before this Court is the accused in the trial Court. A charge-sheet was laid against him by the Station House Officer, Gangavathi before the learned First Class Magistrate, Gangavathi, alleging that he had committed an offence under S. 409 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and wanted to proceed with the case under section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A petition was presented on behalf of the accused contending that the Court had no power to proceed with the case, as earlier, the learned Magistrate had accepted the 'B' Report submitted by the Police with regard to the same offence.(2) Sri M.M. Jagirdar learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed with the charge-sheet as he had earlier accepted the 'B' Report submitted by the police and ordered that the case be closed. He argues that the order of the learned Magistrate is a judicial order and the Magistrate is n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-04-1966
Reported in : AIR1966Mys243; 1966CriLJ1034; (1965)1MysLJ305
ORDER(1) The petitioner before this Court is the first accused in the Court of the First Class Magistrate Kolar, in C.C. No. 1151/63. A complaint was filed by the learned Munsiff of Kolar under Ss. 193, 465 and 467 read with Ss. 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and four other accused. The complaint discloses that the petitioner (1st accused in the lower Court) was the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings (Ex Case No. 597/58) for the recovery of Rs. 1,455-7-0 in the Court of the Munsiff Kolar. On 19-12-1958, the petitioner filed an application in the said execution proceedings alleging discharge and produced a forged receipt, Exhibit P-1, in support of the said discharge. Accused 2, 3 and 5 were the attestors to the said receipt. The learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the receipt and accused 4 was the scribe. The accused gave evidence in Court in support of the said receipt. The learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the receipt, Exhibit P-1, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-10-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Mys51; 1967CriLJ557; ILR1966KAR247; (1966)1MysLJ108
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence passed on the respondent in Criminal Case No. 445 of 1965 on the file of the Second Magistrate, Hassan. The respondent was charged with having committed an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and also of ;in offence under Section 3(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Charges under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act were framed and he pleaded guilty to both the charges. The learned Magistrate convicted him of both the charges and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304-A I. P. C. He also sentenced the petitioner to a fine of Rs. 25/-for the offence under Section 3(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Sri Ramachandra Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, has...
Tag this Judgment!