Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-01-2001
Reported in : 2001CriLJ3156; [2002(94)FLR928]; ILR2001KAR3683; 2001(4)KarLJ548
ORDER1. All these criminal petitions arise out of the similar orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hassan in C.C. Nos. 2512 to 2522 of 1992 dismissing the applications filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The Provident Fund Inspector, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation of Hassan Division filed complaints on 6-8-1991 for initiation of action under Section 14(1) and 14(1-A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 against the accused persons who are the Directors of M/s. Hemayathi Coffee Curing Works (Private) Limited, Hassan on account of the default in contributing to the Provident Fund of its employees as required under the Act and the scheme. The petitioners are accused 2, 4 and 5. It appears one of the accused viz., accused 6, G.M. Rajendra was found absconding. Therefore, the case against accused 6 came to be split up. When the matter was at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-10-2001
Reported in : [2003]115CompCas770(Kar); ILR2001KAR5401; 2002(1)KarLJ370
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J.1. This reference is made under Section 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act by His Lordship Justice S.R. Bannurmath for deciding three questions formulated by him in view of the law of general importance involved in the reference. The Hon'ble Chief Justice has placed this matter before this Bench for appropriate orders.2. The questions which are referred for our consideration are:(1) In a proceeding, initiated under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the death of the complainant, whether any other person could be permitted to prosecute the complaint and under what provisions of Criminal Procedure Code? (2) If it is held that any person could be permitted to prosecute the complaint who is the competent person who could be permitted to prosecute the complaint? (3) Whether that person has to prosecute the complaint personally or whether he could be permitted to prosecute the complaint through a power of attorney holder? 3. These questions arise in the bac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-13-2001
Reported in : 2002CriLJ535; ILR2002KAR1190; 2002(1)KarLJ309
ORDER1. Heard the arguments of learned Counsels on both sides.2. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed on 28-2-2001 praying to quash the FIR in No. 1 of 1994, registered against petitioner by the Lokayuktha Police, Mangalore, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, in the interest of justice.3. A few material undisputed facts are that:Petitioner joined the Government service in Karnataka Government, as an Excise Sub-Inspector in the year 1969. When he was working as such, in the year 1994, at Bantwal in Mangalore, South Canara District, the said Crime No. 1 of 1994 was booked against him for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) on the complaint of one P. Harishchandra, Police Inspector, B.O.I. (Bureau of Investigation), KarnatakaLokayuktha, Mangalore. The complaint against petitioner-accused was to the effect that during the period between 26-11-1969 and 5-2-199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-31-2001
Reported in : 2001(78)ECC326; 2000LC19(Karnataka); ILR2002KAR2175; 2002(4)KarLJ107
ORDERG. Patribasavan Goud, J.1. Alleging evasion of payment of duty under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 ('Act' for short) punishable under Sections 9(1) and 9-AA of the Act, respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore on 27-7-1995 against M/s. India Tobacco Company Limited (TTC' for short) as the first accused and Ashok Bhatia, Director of ITC as the second accused. On the same day, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 9(1) and 9-AA of the Act and directed issuing of summons to the said two accused. A case was registered at CC No. 1227 of 1995. 2. In the very case CC No. 1227 of 1995 on 31-10-1995, respondent-complainant filed before the said learned Magistrate, what he termed 'supplementary complaint' under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging commission of the very offences punishable un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-15-2001
Reported in : 2002CriLJ1353; ILR2002KAR475; 2002(3)KarLJ304
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Though these petitions pertain to number of accused in different criminal cases launched by the State of Karnataka represented by Drugs Inspector, Uttar Kannada District, Karwar, as the offence alleged against the accused petitioners are common and the grounds raised and the questions of law involved are one and the same, all these petitions were taken up for consideration together and are being disposed off by this common order.2. In all these cases, the manufacturers of 'Fratouch' Framacytin Sulphate 1% w/W, partners, chemists, analysts and distributors have been arrayed as accused by the State in the individual complaints filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code inter alia alleging offences in common against all the petitioners of the offence under Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for the manufacture, sale and distribution of spurious or sub-standard drugs punishable under Section 27(c) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-11-2001
Reported in : 2001CriLJ4322; II(2001)DMC588
H.N. Narayan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, dated 7th November, 1998. The learned Sessions Judge, by the said Judgment, convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, with default clause and he was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This judgment is challenged on many counts as could he seen from the grounds pleaded in the appeal memo filed by the appellant.2. The Police Inspector of Dowry Prohibition Cell, C.O.D., Bangalore, laid the charge-sheet against the appellant and two others, alleging the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and also for the offence under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-26-2001
Reported in : 2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-13-2001
Reported in : ILR2001KAR4704; 2001(6)KarLJ87
ORDER1. The issues involved in these writ petitions lie in a very narrow compass. Therefore, though the matters are listed for preliminary hearing in B Group, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to the lis, they are taken up for final hearing.2. Rule nisi.3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to the lis.4. In my order, I would be referring to the status of the parties in these writ petitions as stated before the Trial Judge.5. First petitioner is one Sri Basappa, son of Sri Shiddappa Chi-nagundi. Second petitioner is one Sri Siddappa, father of the first petitioner. They are the defendants in the original suit filed by first respondent herein who is the wife of Sri Basappa. Second respondent-Smt. Roopa is the daughter of Sri Basappa.6. Wife had filed a suit under the provisions of the Hindu Marriages Act, for a decree of maintenance. The same was registered as O.S. No. 118 of 1997 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamkhandi. The maintenan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-04-2001
Reported in : 2001(77)ECC315; ILR2001KAR5462
ORDERThe Court1. Heard the arguments of learned Counsels for both parties on I.A. I, filed for appellant under Section 389 of the Cr. P.C. praying to suspend the impugned sentences against appellant and release him on bail on such terms and conditions as the Court thinks fit.2. By the impugned judgment of conviction, the appellant herein, who was accused 3 (in Spl. Case No. 25 of 1997) before the learned trial Sessions Judge has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' in short), and he was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.3. The respondent-prosecuting agency has filed its objection statement opposing LA. I on the ground that in view of the mandate of law contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, the applicant-appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.4. Mr. Hashmath Pash...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-19-2001
Reported in : 2002CriLJ518; ILR2001KAR5483; 2002(1)KarLJ61
ORDERThe Court1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 2. Apprehending arrest in Cr. No. 101 of 2001 (wrongly shown as 360 of 2001 in the petition) of Hangal Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 430, 447, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC as well as under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the petitioners have approached this Court in the present petition inter alia contending that the petitioners are innocent and they have been arraigned as accused with vengeance due to previous enmity. It is also contended that, though the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 7-9-2001, filing of the complaint almost after 11 days of the incident especially involving the petitioners with the offence under the Act is to wreck vengeance and isdone with much deliberation and as su...
Tag this Judgment!