Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-05-1978
Reported in : 1979CriLJ369
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. These petitions have come up for admission and orders on I. A. I. filed in both the cases.2. The petitions are admitted and by consent of advocates on both sides, they are taken up for final hearing.3. As common question of law arises in both these petitions, they are disposed of by a common order.4. The petitioner in criminal revision petition No. 247 of 1978 was the accused in C, C. No. 915 of 1976, in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate (III Court), Bangalore City. The petitioner in criminal revision petition No. 248 of 1978 was the accused in C. C. No. 1304 of 1976 in the same court.5. On 25-6-1976, Sri J. Joseph, advocate filed his memo of appearance on behalf of the petitioner in criminal revision petition No. 247 of 1978 and got him enlarged on bail. On 24-6-1978 one witness for the prosecution was present. The petitioner in criminal revision petition No. 247 of 1978 was not present and Sri Joseph filed an application under Section 317 of the Code of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-18-1978
Reported in : 1978(1)KarLJ161; [1978]41STC278(Kar)
Rama Jois, J. 1. The legality of search and seizure of certain account books made by the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Belgaum the respondent in the petition, is challenged in this writ petition by a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The impugned order made by the respondent being relevant is extracted below : 'Order of Seizure U/s. 28(A)(3) of the K.S.T. Act, 1957 : I visited the business premises of M/s. SY. Modagekar and Sons, Ganeshwar Galli, Shahapur, Belgaum, on 10-3-1976 at about 6-30 P.M. and conducted the inspection along with C.T.P. (Enf) III, N.Z., Belgaum and the C.T.I's of the Office. At the time of my inspection Shri Shasikant Shamrao Modagekar, the Partner was present and he produced the current books of account and sale bills for inspection. On examination it was found that the assessee had written the day book upto 5-3-1976 on which the closing balance was not struck and I have signed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-18-1978
Reported in : [1978]41STC298(Kar)
ORDERRama Jois, J. 1. The legality of search and seizure of certain account books made by the Commercial Tax Officer (intelligence), Belgaum - the respondent in the petition - is challenged in this writ petition by a registered partnership firm being a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The impugned order made by the respondent being relevant is extracted below : 'Order of seizure under section 28(3) of the K.S.T. Act, 1957 : I visited the business premises of M/s. S. Y. Modagekar & Sons, Ganeshwar Galli, Shahapur, Belgaum, on 10th March, 1976, at about 6-30 P.M. and conducted the inspection along with C.T.O. (Enf.) III, N.Z., Belgaum, and the C.T.Is. of the officer. At the time of my inspection shri Shasikant Shamrao Modagekar, the partner, was present and he produced the current books of account and sale bills for inspection. On examination it was found that the assessee had written the day-book up to 5th Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-25-1978
Reported in : 1979CriLJ185
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. In these two petitions common question of law arises and hence they are being disposed of by a common order.2. Cr. R. P. 243 of 1978 arises out of the order dated 20-6-1978 passed by the J. M. F.C. Koppal, in C. C. No. 184 of 1978 and Cr. R. P. No. 244 of 1978 arises out of the order dated 20-6-1978 passed by the J. M. F. C Koppal, in C. C. No. 185 of 1978.3. In C. C. No. 184 of 1978 the Regional Transport Officer, Raichur, alleged that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 12 (1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as he had, as a registered owner or otherwise in possession or control of the motor vehicle bearing registration No. MYR 4566 (lorry) without paying tax as per the provisions of the Act for the quarter ending on 30-6-1976. In C. C. No. 185 of 1978 the Regional Transport Officer, Raichur, complained that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 12 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-13-1978
Reported in : 1979CriLJ294
ORDERN.R. Kudoor, J.1. The short point involved in this criminal petition is whether a Magistrate before whom a private complaint is filed is empowered to refer the complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the offences disclosed in the complaint are exclusively triable by the Court of Session.2. The facts necessary for deciding the question involved in the petition may be stated as under:The petitioner herein Sled a private-con-plaint under Section 200. Cr. P. G. on 26-8-1977 against respondents 2 to 19 before the Munsiff and J. M. F. G., Ranebennur alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 395, 149, 447 and 504 read with Section 34, I. P. C. After the complaint was (To set aside the order of Prl. Munsiff and J. M. F. C. Ranebennur, D/- 29-8-1977.) filed, the Magistrate, under his order dated 29-8-1977, referred the case to the Circle Inspector of Police, Ranebennur for investigation and report under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-18-1978
Reported in : (1978)7CTR(Kar)0089A
Rama Jois, J. - The legality of search and seizure of certain account books made by the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Belgaum the respondent in the petition, is challenged in this writ petition by a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The impugned order made by the respondent being relevant is extracted below :'Order of Seizure U/s. 28(A)(3) of the K.S.T. Act, 1957 :I visited the business premises of M/s. SY. Modagekar and Sons, Ganeshwar Galli, Shahapur, Belgaum, on 10-3-1976 at about 6-30 P.M. and conducted the inspection along with C.T.P. (Enf) III, N.Z., Belgaum and the C.T.Is of the Office. At the time of my inspection Shri Shasikant Shamrao Modagekar, the Partner was present and he produced the current books of account and sale bills for inspection. On examination it was found that the assessee had written the day book upto 5-3-1976 on which the closing balance was not struck and I have signed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-04-1978
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1632
N.R. Kudoor, J.1. The appellant, who was the accused in C. C, No. 9 of 1975 on the file of the Special Judge, Bangalore, has filed this appeal against the conviction and sentences passed against him by the learned Special Judge in his judgment dated 28-6-1976 for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471, I.P.C. on two counts each and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for each of the aforesaid five offences and directing the substantive sentences to run concurrently.2. The appellant was working as Upper Division Clerk in 26, Equipment Depot, Air Force, Bangalore, in the accounts section till May 1975. He was entitled to medical advance and medical reimbursement in respect of the treatment of himself and the members of his family from the Department in his capacity as such Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-12-1978
Reported in : 1979CriLJ733
N.R. Kudoor, J.1. The petitioner Nanda Kishore has filed this revision petition against the order dated 6-8-1977 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bidar in Criminal Misc. Appeal Number 22/1975 directing return of six articles M. Os. 1 to 6 to the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, who are representatives of the deceased appellant, who are respondents 2 to 6 herein. The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition may be stated in brief as under:2. The Town Police of Bidar prosecuted the petitioner herein under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, for having been found in possession of M. Os. 1 to C under the reasonable belief that they were the stolen properties and the petitioner failed to account for the possession of the same, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidar, in C. C. No. 931/3/73. The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the petitioner holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the properties M. Os., 1 to 6, of which the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-25-1978
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1233
N.D. Venkatesh, J.1. Since an important question of law is involved in these petitions, the same have been referred to the Division Bench by Nesargi, J. The question of law involved is whether the impugned orders are 'interlocutory orders' as contemplated under Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and therefore the revisions in question are barred?2. The facts that gave rise to these petitions briefly stated are these:These petitions have been filed under Section 397 (1) of the Code.Cr. R.P. No. 205 of 1975 has been filed by the respondents in Cr. Mis. No. 24 of 1974-75 on the file of the Sr. Divisional Magistrate, Pandavapura, against the order of that Court made under Section 112 of the Code; Cr. R.P. 296 of 1975 has been filed by some of the respondents in No. CR/MAG/40/74-75 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Kopala, Raichur District, against the order of that Court taking steps against them under Section 107 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-05-1978
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1043
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. The petitioner has prayed that the judgment dated 19-7-1077 passed by the Sessions Judge, North Kanara, Karwar, in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1977, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed on respondent 1 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karwar, in C. C. No. 1344 of 1976, and directing that there shall be a de novo trial by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karwar, after registering the case on his file, be set aside,2. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (to be hereinafter referred to as the new Code), The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence alleged and issued process. On the accused-respondent 1 appearing before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Chief Judicial Magistrate decided to try the case summarily by applying the procedure for summary trial as provided by Section 260 of the new Code onwards. On 17-7-1976 the Chief Judicial Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!