Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-09-1983
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 25-2-1980 of the Additional Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Udupi, Dakshina Kannada, in Misc. Case No. 87 of 1978 on his file. 2. Respondent is the wife of the petitioner. They have three children. Respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) against the petitioner in the court below claiming maintenance for herself and, on behalf of her three minor children. Allowing the application, by the impugned order, the court below has directed the petitioner to pay to them maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. 3. Besides making his submissions on merits, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband also submitted that his client did not have adequate opportunity to have his say in the matter in the court below and, therefore, also the order requires to be set aside. 4. Having had notice of the proceeding the husband had appeared in the court below, engaged a counsel, and had file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-24-1983
Reported in : ILR1985KAR175
ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. In Cr. R.P. No.705/82 the Petitioners, who are accused in C.C. No.616 of 1982 on the file of the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Savanur, are challenging the order dated 15-9-82 of that Court issuing summons for their appearance in theCourt,2. In Cr. R.P. No. 706/82 the Petitioners, who are accused in C.C. No. 230 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Jamkhandi, are similarly challenging the order dated 31-7-1982 of that Court issuing summons to them to appear before that Court.3. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these Petitions they were clubbed and heard together.4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned State Public Prosecutor, who was requested to offer his views on behalf of the State, were heard in the matter.5. The main contention of the Petitioners in these two cases is that in the matter of taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process against them (the Petitioners) the Magistrates had not followed the procedu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-19-1983
ORDER1. The petitioners herein were the accused in C.C. No. 18/1979 on the file of the Munisff and J.M.F.C., Somwarpet. They were tried by that Court for offences under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (the Act) read with Rr. 154 and 155 of the Karnataka Forest Rules 1967 (the Rules) on the allegation that they had been found transporting in a car bearing No. MYG 1518 on 28-11-1976 at about 5 a.m., on the public road at Seegehosur near Kakkehole bridge in Somwarpet Taluk of Kodagu District some sandalwood without a permit. 2. On the accused claiming to be tried the learned Magistrate received the evidence for the prosecution questioned the accused, and thereafter hearing the concerned, by his judgment dated 13-6-1979, found these persons guilty and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I., for 3 months and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default to pay the said sum, to suffer further R.I., for 3 months. The Sandalwood seized was confiscated to the Government. 3. This...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-22-1983
ORDER1. Cr.P. No. 498 of 1983 and the petitions of Sharamma and Yenkanna, are under Section 438 of the Criminal P.C., 1973 (the Code); and Cr.Ps. Nos. 499 and 500 of 1983 are under Section 439 of the Code. 2. Since common questions of law and facts arise in these cases they were clubbed and heard together. 3. In all these cases the local police have registered cases against these petitioners for alleged violations of certain orders issused under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act). 4. The allegations against the petitioners in Cr.Ps. Nos. 498, 499 and 500 of 1983 are that they, as wholesale dealers in foodgrains, rice and paddy, had violated Karnataka Foodgrains Declaration of Stock Order, 1967 and R. 8 of Karnataka Food Grains (Wholesale) Dealers Licensing Order, 1964, and thereby had committed offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act. Their mill premises were raided and the available stock of foodgrains and account books seized. 5. The complaint against Sharamm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-14-1983
ORDER1. These are applications filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code). 2. Under S. 438(1) the High Court and the Court of Session have concurrent jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. That section provides that a person apprehending arrest on an accusation of having committed a non-bail able offence 'may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction that in the event of his being arrested he shall be released on bail'. Since this Court and the Court of Session have got concurrent jurisdiction in the matter either of them could be moved by the person concerned. 3. The question is : It is not desirable for this Court to impose certain limitation in the matter of entertaining such applications at the first instance 4. This Court can adopt such a course only if it serves the ends of justice and not otherwise. 5. Apart from S. 438 there are other provisions in the Code which have invested this Court and the Court of Session with concu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-07-1983
Reported in : 1984(1)KarLJ466
1. R. S. Prabhu, the petitioner herein, being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sentence imposed on the accused by the Sessions Judge, Lakshina Kannada in Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 1979, has preferred this revision. 2. The appeal before the Sessions Judge had arisen out of the judgment dated 31-10-1979 of the Additional Munsiff &. J.M.F.C., Udupi in C.C. No. 1042 of 1975 on his file. 3. That was a case in which, on the complaint of this Prabhu, the police of Hiriadka had charge-sheeted the accused-respondents 1 to 4 herein for offences under S. 325 read with S. 34, Penal Code. 4. The learned Magistrate, who had tried the accused on these charges, found each of them guilty for offences under S. 324 r/w S. 34, Penal Code, and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for nine months. The learned Magistrate was also of the view that that was not a case in which he should extend the benefit of S. 360, Cr.P.C., 1973 (Code) to them. 5. In the appeal they had preferred the learned Sessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-03-1983
Reported in : 1983LC1793D(Karnataka); 1983(14)ELT2270(Kar)
ORDER1. M/s. British Physical Laboratories India Limited, Petitioner No. 1, is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and has its registered office at Palghat, State of Kerala and has its Head Office at M. G. Road, Bangalore City. Sri M. A. Uppal, who represents petitioner No. 1 as its 'Finance Director', is the second petitioner in the case. In the course of my order hereafter, I will refer to petitioner No. 1 who is the principal petitioner as the petitioner in the case. 2. The petitioner is principally engaged in the manufacture and sale of sophisticated electronic instruments and equipments at its factories situated at Palghat and Avalahali, Old Madras Road, Bangalore Distt. From 1982 the petitioner has started the manufacture of television sets and video cassette recorders (hereinafter referred to as T. Vs and VCRs). The petitioner has its sales offices at Bangalore, Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi. 3. The manufacturing places at Palghat, Avalahali and portions o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-20-1983
Reported in : 1983(2)KarLJ514; [1984]57STC193(Kar)
Venkatesh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. Since common questions of law and facts arise in these two petitions they were clubbed and heard together. 3. The petitioner, admittedly, is an assessee to sales tax. The Commercial Tax Officer, Haveri, has initiated proceedings against it (in Crl. Misc. Cases Nos. 7 and 6 of 1983 respectively) on the file of the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Haveri, under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act). 4. It is not in dispute that, prior to initiating these proceedings, the Sales Tax Officer had issued to the assessee and demand notice in the prescribed form - Form No. 6. The notice warned that 'if the assessee failed to pay the sales tax (assessed) the amount will be recovered as if it were arrears of land revenue and you will be liable to pay the same as provided under section 13 of the Sales Tax Act, 1957'. The main ground of attack to the initiation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-23-1983
Reported in : 1984(2)ECC354; 1983(14)ELT1758(Kar); ILR1983KAR409; 1983(2)KarLJ29
Kulkarni, J. 1. The appeal by the Customs and Central Excise Department is directed against the judgment of acquittal, dt. 20-8-1982, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijapur, in CC No. 1558/81 acquitting the accused of the offence under Ss. 9(i)(a), 9(i)(b), 9(i)(bb), 9(i)(bbb) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows : Veerabhadreswara Weaving Factory, fancy pattal manufacturers, Rabkavi, in Bijapur Dist. is a partnership firm. The said firm was formed with the intention of manufacturing cotton fabrics. A-2 was its managing partner. A-3 and 4 were the other partners. A-1 is the partnership firm. The said firm was manufacturing coloured sarees since 4-1-1976 on the 12 power looms situate in the premises bearing Municipal No. 961, Krishna River Road, Rabkavi. A-1 firm also owns a sales depot in a building Municipal No. 131, D-4, Main Road, Rabkavi. Mr. Nandan, the Inspector of Central Excise, visited the Veerabhadreswara W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-25-1983
Reported in : 1983(2)KarLJ433; [1984]55STC225(Kar)
Puttaswamy, J.1. A partnership firm called 'Vaishali Traders' engaged in the business of dealing in electrical goods, consisting of the petitioner as one of its partners, is a registered dealer on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, IV Circle, Bangalore, under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner has his residence at No. 76/3, Mariswamy Mutt Lane, Cottonpet Cross, Bangalore-53. 2. On 10th November, 1982, one Sri P. S. Chengappa, working as the C.T.O. (Intelligence) I, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.T.O.'), made an application in C. Miscellaneous No. 193 of 1982 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Second Court, Bangalore, under section 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 28(2) of the Act, to issue a search warrant to search the residential premises of the petitioner and to seize the incriminating documents found therein relating to the firm. On an examination of that application, the learned Magistrate made ...
Tag this Judgment!