Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-29-1987
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2326; 1987(2)KarLJ201
ORDER1. This is a Revision Petition under section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short) and is directed against the order dated 9-4-1985 made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chitradurga Sub-Division, in MAG. CR 7(D)/1984-85 on his file. 2. The facts, as they appear in the record, necessary to dispose of the present petition, are these : Anjanappa, son of Gidda Hanumanthappa, the petitioner, is a resident of Barageri Colony on Davangere Road in the limits of the City of Chitradurga. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chitradurga Circle, on 4-6-1984 registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No. 55/84 under Section 56(d) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (the Act for short). The allegation in the complaint lodged by the Circle Inspector of Police, on behalf of the State was that the petitioner moving on public roads, frequented by the members of the public was beckoning the members of the public to play Mataka gambling. The further allega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-04-1987
Reported in : ILR1988KAR278; [1988]68STC366(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. The petitioner, a public limited company and a dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ('the Act'), has challenged the order of seizure made by the respondent under section 28(3) of the Act. 2. The respondent, an officer of the Commercial Tax Department attached to its Intelligence Wing at Bangalore, as stated in the order which is impugned in this writ petition, on information that the petitioner was effecting 'stock transfers' of goods, namely, silk fabrics to its various show-rooms outside the State of Karnataka, and was thus avoiding payment of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act (C.S.T. Act), visited the office-cum-mill premises of the petitioner at Bangalore on 13th March 1987. 3. After entering the premises of the petitioner, the respondent called upon the Financial Accountant of M/s. Binny Mills Ltd., the petitioner-company, to make available the relevant books of account and other records relating to transactions described in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-27-1987
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2285
ORDERNavadgi, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the. Code' for short). H. L. Keshava Murthy, petitioner No. 1 and P. Lankesh, petitioner No. 2 have prayed in this petition to quash the proceedings initiated against them by the Metropolitan Magistrate, IV Court' Bangalore in C.C. No. 758 of 1985 on his file on the grounds stated in the petition.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and learned High Court Government Pleader for the Slate. I have perused the record of the proceedings.3. The facts material and relevant for the present purpose are these :H. Veeraiah, the respondent lodged a written complaint against the petitioners before the Magistrate on 21-2-1985 alleging that each of the petitioners had committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.4. It appears from the record that on the same day, that is, on 21-2-1985 the sworn statement of the respondent was recorded by the Magistrate and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-25-1987
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2280
ORDERNavadgi, J.1. In this Revision Petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short), the five petitioners, who have been ordered to be impleaded as respondents Nos. 2 to 6 in C. Misc No 141/81 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, V Court, Bangalore City, Bangalore, have challenged the order dated 2-2-1985 made by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate allowing the application (I.A.I) to implead them in C. Misc. No. 141/81.2. The facts relevant to dispose of the Petition are these : Nagamma the respondent, the mother of petitioners 1 to 5 has filed an application before the Learned Magistrate on 17-9-1981 claiming maintenance allowance from her husband Kadirappa, who is not impleaded in the present Revision Petition. The respondent examined herself on 27-11-1982 in support of the claim and adduced the evidence of one witness on 19-3-1983. Kadirappa, the husband of respondent, was examined on two dates, i.e., on 19-3-1983 and 2-8-1983. The Lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-20-1987
Reported in : ILR1988KAR198
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. Criminal Revision Petition No. 504/87 by the complaints Nos. 1 and 2 is directed against the order dated June 26, 1987 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 23/87 setting aside the order dated February 7, 1987 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No. 1461/85 ordering the framing of a charge against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for an offence under Sections 417 and 421 I.P.C., and the consequent order of remand made by the Sessions Judge to the trial Court.Shri Venkataranga Iyengar submitted that he appears for the respondents in Criminal Petition No. 1224/87. Arguments of all Advocates are heard on final merits in both the cases.2. The material facts are as under :- The complainant No. 1 is the father of complainant No. 2 - Jayarathnamma. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are father and son respectively. The accused No. 1 and 2, on 29-8-1983, are stated to have borrowed Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-15-1987
Reported in : ILR1987KAR3793; 1987(3)KarLJ536
Kulkarni, J.Criminal Appeal 421 of 1986 by P.W. 13 - Irappa is directed against the order dated 31-1-1986 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1985, ordering the confiscation of the gun M.O. 1.Criminal Appeal 583 of 986 by the State is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31-1-1986 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1985, acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC.2. The material facts are as under -On 22-7-1984, the Deputy Superintendent of Excise Sri Ayyappa Tarapati Sadavanhi P W. 1 along with the Excise Inspector of Soundatti Sri Dyamappa-P W. 2, Excise Sub-Inspector of Bailhongal Sri Subhash - P. W. 3, Excise Guard Laxman-P.W. 4, another Excise Sub-Inspector of Dandeli Sri Digambhar-P.W. 5, deceased Excise Guard K.N Patil and Hanumanthappa P W. 7, Maruti-P.W. 8 and Irappa P.W.13 had gone to Hogaratti Hanamanatti forest for detecting distillation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-18-1987
Reported in : ILR1988KAR481; 1987(3)KarLJ378
ORDERRama Jois, J.In all these Writ Petitions, presented by the publishers of certain magazines questioning the legality of the seizure of all the copies of certain issues of the magazines the following question of law arises for consideration:'Whether a Police Officer has the power to seize all the copies of an issue of a magazine printed and published and/ or kept for sale in the Book stalls on the ground that an offence under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code ('the IPC' for short) is suspected to have been committed through writings, articles and/or pictures published in the said issue of magazine?'2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are these:(i) In W.P.10650/86 :- This Writ Petition is by Akhila Publishers Pvt. Limited, Bangalore. They are the publishers of a weekly film magazine entitled 'Chitravihari'and a monthly magazine entitled 'Surathi'. On 6-6-1986 the Upparpet Police in the City of Bangalore seized 20,000 copies of 'Surathi' magazine comprising of different monthl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-19-1987
Reported in : 2012(8)SCC537; 2012AIRSCW5157; JT2012(8)175; 2012(8)SCALE3
1. Delay condoned.2. This petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and Order dated 8.2.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal (Capital Case) No. 7760 of 2009, by which the High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to the respondent by the Sessions Court, in life imprisonment upon recording its conclusion that it was not among the `rarest of rare cases’, in which death penalty could be awarded.3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are as follows:A. The respondent was engaged in the work of whitewash in the house of one Shyam Ji Sharma, resident of Tulsi Vihar Colony, Varanasi and his very close relative Divya Rani was staying with him, as she was appearing for her Intermediate examination. The complainant Shyam Ji Sharma alongwith his wife Rajni Sharma had gone to the market on 24.2.2007 to purchase goods while Divya Rani (deceased) was supervising the said work. When the complainant came back with his wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-19-1987
Reported in : ILR1988KAR666
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision against the order dated 4-7-1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sidlaghatta, in C.C.No. 395/87 issuing process against one Mahadevaiah for the offence punishable under Sections 499, 500 and 510 I.P.C.2. The complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the accused Mahadevaiah alleging that on 3-7-1987 a case in Crime No. 175/87 on the file of the police station of Sidlaghatta had been registered under Section 110(e) Cr.P.C. According to him, he had been engaged by the opponents in that case as their advocate. The complainant went to Taluk Office at Sidlaghatta along with the vakalath and an application for bail and also sureties. According to the complainant, P.S.I. of Sidlaghatta police station told him that the accused would be produced before the Sub Divisional Magistrate at Chickballapur. According to him, the P.S.I. told him that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Chickballapur had gone to Kolar and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-20-1987
Reported in : ILR1987KAR3833
ORDERNavadgi, J.In this Revision Petition, the Order dated 20-5-1985 made by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad, in C.C.No. 1723/83 on his file, is challenged.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioners Nos.1 and 2; Sri K. Srinivasa Gowda, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1; and the learned Counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3. I have perused the record.3. The question for determination is; Whether the order impugned in this Revision Petition is illegal, incorrect or improper so as to justify interference with it in this Revision Petition?4. The facts relevant for our present purpose are very few and they are as follows:Sham Krishna Rao Harapanahalli, respondent No. 3 herein, lodged a complaint against T.M. Harapanahalli (petitioner No. 1), Smt. Rama Bai, his wife (petitioner No 2) and Gulam Modin, respondent No. 2 herein, alleging offences punishable under Sections 466 and 107 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The Additiona...
Tag this Judgment!