Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(2)BomCR695; 1994CriLJ2393; II(1994)DMC195; 1994(1)MhLj202
ORDER1. This is a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the orders passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 1550/92, 1551/92 and one unregistered Criminal Revision Application dated 10-2-1993. The proceeding raises really a vitally important question of law which pertains to the right of recovery of maintenance allowance by a person who is entitled to maintenance allowance under the provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by attachment of the salary of the person who is subjected to order of payment of maintenance allowance. 2. Petitioners are the minor sons of respondent No. 1. In Misc. Criminal Application No. 139/98 filed by them under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they had applied for maintenance allowance from their father, the respondent No. 1. The matter came to be decided on 20-6-1989. The respondent No. 1 had committed defaults in payment of the maintenan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(5)MhLj419
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri S.A. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.B. Ahirkar, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The question which arises for our consideration in the present writ petition is, 'When the offence alleged to have been committed by the Army Officer/Personnel and cognizance thereof has already been taken by the competent Criminal Court, whether the Officer Commanding in view of Section 125 of the Army Act is legally entitled to make a request to the Criminal Court to hand over the custody of the accused to the Army Authority as well as record of the criminal trial for conducting Court martial proceedings as per the procedures prescribed in this regard.'4. Mr. Jaiswal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the instant case the petitioner is a military personnel. At the relevant time, the petitioner was attached to 333 Missile Brigade Military Cantonmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1891
Vaidya, J.1. This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by one Balkishan A, Devidaval against whom Criminal Case No. 102/5/72 is pending in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court. Victoria Terminus, Bombay. The application involves important points under the Railway Protection Force Act 1957 (Act No. 23 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the 'R. P. F. Act'') and the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 1966 (Act No. 29 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the 'R. P. U. P. Act').2. The above case arose out of a complaint filed by the Inspector, Central Intelligence Bureau, Head Quarters before the Presidency Magistrate, at V. T., Bombay.3. The allegations in the said complaint may be briefly summarised as under:On November 21, 1970, the Assistant Security Officer, Central Railway, Bhusa-wal, intimated to the Chief Security Officer Bombay V. T. that two wagons Nos. ERKC-9447 Ex. HSPG BNDM to Akola and Wagon No. ERKC 75531 Ex. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR852; 2005(5)BomCR294
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Sudam Bhausaheb Bhalekar-respondent herein was recruited as police constable in the police department on 1.7.1970. He was promoted as head constable somewhere in the year 1982. In the month of May, 1993, he was attached to Khadki Police Station. On 28.5.1993, one complaint was made against him by Ramesh Babanrao Ranaware that he was demanding bribe for returning his tempo and its documents which had met with an accident. Based on that complaint, the trap was laid by Anti Corruption Department and he was trapped accepting illegal gratification. He was tried before the Special Court, Pune for the offence punishable under section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Upon conclusion of the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune vide his judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 convicted him for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR16
Hajarnavis, J.1. This case has been referred to this Bench, at the instance of our learned brother Gandhi J. for decision on the following questions:1. Whether stating the grounds of his being so satisfied in Section 145(7) mean that the Magistrate empowered under the section to pass order must separately give reasons or grounds of being so satisfied of his reading the application and satisfying himself by seeing that the complainant has made statements on solemn affirmation are sufficient to pass a preliminary order?2. Whether non-stating of grounds or reasons vitiates the order and/or the subsequent proceedings including the final order under Section 145(6)?3. Whether the preliminary order passed on a cyclostyled form with blanks filled in ink necessarily implies that the Magistrate has not applied his mind or has mechanically passed the order without considering the contents of the application?4. Whether 'a breach of the peace' referred to in Section 145(1) necessarily means 'breach...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1972)74BOMLR742
Kania, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question as to the interpretation of Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is the proprietor of Messrs. Peerbhoy and Sons. He put up an illuminated Neon Sign containing the words 'Peerbhoys' outside his shop. He was prosecuted under Section 471 read with Section 328-A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and put up for trial in Cri. Case No. 298/M of 1968 before the learned Presidency Magistrate, 1st Additional Court, Victoria Terminus, Bombay, but he was acquitted by the learned Magistrate on April 30, 1968. The State being the respondent herein preferred an appeal against that order of acquittal and the appeal was placed for hearing before. Abhyankar, J., on November 7, 1969. Shri A.H. Merchant, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the petitioner and applied for an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal for two weeks which was granted. It is stated in the petition that Mr. Mer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1947)49BOMLR584
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dated February 1, 1945, in appeal from its original jurisdiction, which affirmed a judgment and decree of that High Court dated March, 81, 1943, in its original jurisdiction, dismissing the appellant's suit for damages for malicious prosecution.2. The question arising in this appeal is:-At what stage will criminal proceedings instituted falsely and maliciously before a Magistrate under the provisions of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure lay the foundation for a suit for damages for malicious prosecution ?3. Before dealing with the facts of the case, it will be convenient to notice the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 190 so far as relevant enacts that except as thereinafter provided, any Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate or other Magistrate therein mentioned may take cognizance of any offence (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2006Bom39; II(2006)DMC294
ORDERK.J. Rohee, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside common judgment dated 31st December, 2003 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Revision No. 233/2002 and 258/2002 and judgment dated 1st October, 2002, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 5, Amravati in Misc. Criminal Application No. 18/2002.2. The petitioner is serving as Senior Clerk in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Amravati. He owns a house and agricultural land. He is having grown up children from his first wife. After the death of his first wife, the petitioner married the respondent on 27th January, 1995. The respondent is M. A. B. Ed. and was serving as a part-time teacher. The petitioner and the respondent could not pull on well and on 11th September, 1996 the petitioner divorced the respondent. After the divorce, he married thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1983(2)BomCR787
M.P. Kanade, J.1. The petitioner-original accused was prosecuted under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, having been found in possession of battery connections belonging to the railways, on August 14, 1 974 at Matunga Workshop. The said case was numbered as 255/S of 1974. The prosecution, led the evidence of one Nasaruddin Rakshak attached to Railway Protection Force, Post Matunga. In his evidence the said witness stated that the property seized from the accused had no specific marks indicating that the property belonged to the railways. No further evidence was led by the prosecution and the learned Magistrate on the basis of the said evidence discharged the accused on June 25, 1976.2. It is thereafter criminal case bearing Case No. 115/S of 1 977 was filed on the same facts. No leave was obtained by the prosecution to file a fresh complaint. It further appears that no objection was taken regarding the maintainability of the second complaint. However...
Tag this Judgment!