Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-05-1985
Reported in : ILR1986KAR1205; 1985(2)KarLJ474
ORDERDesai, J.1. The respondents in these two Revision petitions are Silk realers. The Assistant Director (Enforcement), Department of Sericulture, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore on verification of the accounts of the respondents, found that they had disposed of silk reeled by them outside the Silk Exchange in violation of Section 8A of the Karnataka Silkworm Seed Cocoon and Silk Yarn (Regulation of Production, Supply, Distribution and Sale) Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules and notifications issued thereunder. On the basis of that report, the Deputy Director (Enforcement), Department of Sericulture, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, registered cases against the respondents. The Director of Sericulture, on hearing them, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on each of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said orders of the Director of Sericulture, the respondents filed Criminal Appeal No. 47/1981 and 48/1981 respectively on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ban...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-25-1985
Reported in : ILR1986KAR1460
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Government Order dated 12-11-1984 bearing No. HD 87 PRR 84, produced as Annexure-E. He has also sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to release him prematurely.2. 1) The petitioner along with four other accused was convicted on 18-8-1978 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 307 read with Section 149; and Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1977 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months, one year, 5 years and one year respectively on each of the aforesaid counts. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. 2) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of convictions and sentences, the petitioner al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-07-1985
Reported in : ILR1986KAR211
ORDER1. This Criminal Petition one under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arose out of a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent Smt. Kalavathi against the petitioner (the accused) for offences punishable under Ss. 494 and 109, I.P.C. read with S. 34, I.P.C. 2. The matter arises in this way. On a complaint filed by the complainant in the Court of the JMFC., Saundatti, in Cr. Case No. 12/1982, the Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and of four witnesses produced by her passed an order D/- 9-11-1982 directing issue of process against all the accused. The accused carried the matter to the Court of Session at Belgaum in Criminal Revision No. 10/1983 which came to be heard and dismissed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, as per his order D/- 30th July, 1983. Being aggrieved by this order the accused have filed this petition challenging the validity and legality of the order passed by the Courts below. 3. Sri S. M. Kallur, learned Advo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-08-1985
Reported in : ILR1986KAR217
ORDERKudoor, J.1. The order that gave rise to this Criminal Petition is the order dated 19-1-1984 passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, in P.C.R. No. 115 of 1983 on an application I. A-I filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the seized goods worth about Rs. 4,88,965/- by the Koramangala Police on 18-11-1983 during the course of the investigation of the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent.2. I shall refer to the parties in the course of this order as they stood in relation to the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent.3. To proceed further, it is relevant to refer to a few facts leading up to the filing of this petition.4. The complainant Associated Electronic & Electrical Industries (Bangalore) Private Limited represented by its General Manager Sri G. Ramesh has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Silver Audio System Private Limited...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-07-1985
Reported in : 1986CriLJ1719
ORDERN.R. Kudoor, J.1. This Criminal Petition one under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arose out of a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent Smt. Kalavathi against the petitioner (the accused) for offences punishable under Sections 494 and 109, I.P.C. read with Section 3.4, I.P.C.2. The matter arises in this way.On a complaint filed by the complainant in the Court of the JMFC, Saundatti, in Cr. Case No. 12/1982, the Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and of four witnesses produced by her passed an order D/- 9-11-1982 directing issue of process against all the accused. The accused carried the matter to the Court of Session at Belgaum in Criminal Revision No. 10/1983 which came to be heard and dismissed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, as per his order D/- 30th July, 1983. Being aggrieved by this order the accused have filed this petition challenging the validity and legality of the order passed by the Courts below.3. Sri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-15-1985
Reported in : ILR1986KAR1574
ORDERKudoor, J.1. In this Writ Petition one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, one Krishna Bhat, owner of Petition-A' Schedule properties, has sought for a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order quashing the order dated 16-11-1981 Annexure-A, passed by the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal, Bantwal, granting occupancy fight in respect of 'A' Schedule properties in favour of the 3rd respondent-Narayana Gowda.2. The matter arises in this way :The 3rd respondent made an application on 23-8-1974 to the Land Tribunal, Bantwal, in Form-7 as required under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, claiming occupancy right in respect of S. No. 8/9A of Vittal Padnur Village of Bantwal Taluk belonging to one Mahalinga Bhatta as could be seen from the entry made in the General Daily Register (GDR) at Sl. No. 4712. In the year 1980, the 3rd respondent appeared to have filed a copy of Form-7 application said to be the copy of the application made by hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-17-1985
Reported in : ILR1985KAR4028
ORDERVenkatesh, J.1.This Petition by the State is directed against the order dated 11-10-1984 of the Munsiff and J.M.F.C. Kanakapura, in C.C. No. 232 of 1982 on his file. By that order, the Learned Magistrate, exercising his powers under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has stopped theproceedings. This was at a stage where the recording of evidence had not even commenced. The stoppage of the proceedings has in law the effect of discharging the accused. TheRespondent was the accused and he was being prosecuted on the allegation that he had committed an offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 read with Section 11 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act. 1964 (the Act). It may not be necessary to enter into the merits of the case nor to highlight the facts in great detail and that is for the reason that the order of the Court below terminating the proceeding mainly proceeds on a legal ground. The Learned Magistrate is of the view that the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-20-1985
Reported in : ILR1986KAR417
ORDERKudoor, J.1. This Revision Petition is by the accused in C.C. No. 5199.84 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City. It is directed against the order dated 18-8-1984 passed by the chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, directing issue of process to the accused for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 465 I.P.C.2. The matter arises in this way :The respondents in this revision, who will be hereinafter referred to as the complainant's, have filed a complaint before that Malleswaram Police against all these accused alleging the during the period between 1979 and 1980, the 1st accused, the ex-Matadhipathi of Chitrapur Mutt and Ex-officio Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Sree Pandurangaswami Ashrama Trust along with the other accused committed breach of trust by misappropriating the gold and silver articles of the Trust worth about Rs. 8 to 10 lakhs. On the basis of the complaint filed by them, the Malleswaram Police, registered a case in C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-03-1985
Reported in : ILR1985KAR3281
ORDERKudoor, J.1. This Criminal Petition one under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) is directed against the order dated 10-10-1984 in C.C. No. 800/84 (C.R. No. 37/84) passed by the Munsiff & JMFC, Chintamani, directing issue of process to the petitioners who were accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offences under Sections 43(5) and (6) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and also for an offence under Section 193 I.P.C. against the 2nd petitioner.2. The matter arises in this way :The respondent (who will be referred to as the complainant) presented a private complaint against the petitioners (who will be referred to as the accused). The Magistrate, following the procedure laid down in Chapter XV of the Code, directed issue of process against the accused as stated above. It is the correctness of this order that is sought to be challenged in this Criminal Petition, by the accused.3. This petition may be disposed of on a short point. The Trial Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-27-1985
Reported in : ILR1985KAR2822
ORDERVenkatesb, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in these two proceedings, they were clubbed and heard together.2. These are applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973. They are by persons who are arrayed or shown as the accused by the police in their respective crime numbers. The request is to quash the investigation that are being conduct-ed by the concernedpolice.3. Before examining the claims of the petitioners on merits, the first question that has to be resolved is as to whether this Court exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. interfere with the investigation pending with the police.4. Following a previous ruling of this Court in Chandrasekhara v. State, 1978(2) K.L.J. 273 and the decisions of the Supreme Court having a bearing on this question this Court, in Maheshwarappa v. State of Karnataka, 1983(2) K.L.J 85 has held that the High Court exercising its powers under Section 482 of theCode cannot interfere in the course of the investigation by ...
Tag this Judgment!