Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005CriLJ4180; ILR2005KAR4478; 2006(2)KarLJ616
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. An unsuccessful petitioner-accused has come up with this petition, challenging the order dated 27-12-2004 in S.C. No. 64/2002, passed by the Fast Track Court-VIII Sessions, Bangalore City.2. The brief facts leading to the case are the petitioner has been chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of the I.P.C. The trial of the case was excepted to commence on 27-12-2004 and the trial was to be conducted in an in camera form. At that time, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted before the Court-below to conduct the trial in the Court hall itself in the form of in camera, excluding the presence of unconcerned, as it is a normal procedure and it is not convenient to hold and conduct trial in the private chamber of the Trial Court. But the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was rejected and the Trial Court, directed the petitioner-accused, the Counsel for the petitioner and the prosecutor to come to the chamber of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: 1.00. Present Revision Application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner - original accused to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mehsana in Criminal Case No. 1098 of 2004 dtd.16/4/2009, by which the petitioner - original accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month and further directed the petitioner - original accused to pay Rs.3,50,000/- to the original complainant, towards compensation under section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner herein original accused has also challenged the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , praying to set aside the order dated 20.02.2014 passed at the stage of registration on the unnumbered Private Complaint dated 06.1.2014 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and the Special Court for Lokayuktha at Shivamogga and to direct the court below to register the complaint and proceed according to the law. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , praying to set aside the order dated 20.02.2014 dismissing the unnumbered Private Complaint dated 26.12.2013 (Sri Vinod son of Sri. Ommen Baby Vs. B.S. Yeddurappa and others) on the file of the court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge and the Special Court for Lokayuktha at Shivamogga. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , praying to a) set aside ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
:1. : R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE78TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2839/2012 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2761/2012, 2766/2012, 2791/2012, 2793/2012, 2794/2012 AND25372013 CRL.A.No.2839/2012 BETWEEN: Smt.Kanchan, Wife of Ananth Vanidesai, Aged 56 years, Occ: Household, R/o Tilakwadi, Belgaum, Belgaum District. .. APPELLANT (By Shri Bahubali A Danawade, Advocate) AND:1. Ravindranath, S/o Ramachandra Chougule, Aged 35 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o Mannur, :2. : Belgaum District.2. Ranjeet, S/o Arjurao Shintre, Aged 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o Pulabhag Galli, CCB No.180, Belgaum.3. Vijayanand @ Dinku, S/o Bapusaheb Shindhe, Aged 37 years, Occ: Discover Seizing Agency, R/o Bachi House No.173, Belgaum Taluk.4. Rajesh, S/o Mahadev Menashe, Aged 40 years, Occ: Painting And Driver, R/o Laxminagar, Plot No.113, Rajadeep Building, Hindalaga, Belgaum.5. Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
:1. : R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE78TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2839/2012 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2761/2012, 2766/2012, 2791/2012, 2793/2012, 2794/2012 AND25372013 CRL.A.No.2839/2012 BETWEEN: Smt.Kanchan, Wife of Ananth Vanidesai, Aged 56 years, Occ: Household, R/o Tilakwadi, Belgaum, Belgaum District. .. APPELLANT (By Shri Bahubali A Danawade, Advocate) AND:1. Ravindranath, S/o Ramachandra Chougule, Aged 35 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o Mannur, :2. : Belgaum District.2. Ranjeet, S/o Arjurao Shintre, Aged 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o Pulabhag Galli, CCB No.180, Belgaum.3. Vijayanand @ Dinku, S/o Bapusaheb Shindhe, Aged 37 years, Occ: Discover Seizing Agency, R/o Bachi House No.173, Belgaum Taluk.4. Rajesh, S/o Mahadev Menashe, Aged 40 years, Occ: Painting And Driver, R/o Laxminagar, Plot No.113, Rajadeep Building, Hindalaga, Belgaum.5. Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE21t DAY OF OCTOBER2014BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.224 OF2014CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.221 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.222 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.223 OF2014IN CRL.R.P.No.224/2014 BETWEEN: Shri. Vinod .B, Son of Late Sri. Ommen Baby, Aged 47 years, Advocate, office and residence at Beena Villa (upstairs), Kuvempu Road, Shivamogga 577 201. (By Shri. Shyam Sundar M.S., Advocate ) PETITIONER2K.E. Kanthesh, Son of K.S.Eshwarappa, Aged about 32 years, Jayalakshmi Nilaya, 1st Main Road, Gundappa Shed, Malleshwara Layout, Shivamogga 577 201. K.S. Eshwarappa, Son of Late Sri. Sharanappa, Aged 65 years, Jayalakshmi Nilaya, 1st Main Road, Gundappa Shed, Malleshwara Layout, Shivamogga 577 201. AND:1. 2. 3. (By Shri. M.T. Nanaiah, Senior Advocate for Shri. M. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for Respondents) R. Shalini, Wife of K.E.Kanthesh, Aged about 28 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2012CrLJ355(NOC)
1. The present Special Criminal Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner-Smt Payal Mihirbhai Patel (original accused no. 3 as described in the charge-sheet) to quash and set aside the order dated 14/09/2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad below Exh. 2 in Criminal Case No. 147/2010 by which the learned Magistrate has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner to discharge her for the offences alleged arising out of the FIR, being C.R. No. I 1/2010 registered with Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as the impugned order dated 09/12/2010 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 462/2010 by which the learned revisional Court has dismissed the said Revis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.32447 of 2009 ====================================================== Rajan Devi wife of Sri Ram Bihari Singh, resident of Village-Sona Gopalpur, P.S.-Gopalpur, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA18. 01-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. This application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to quash the order dated 09.03.2009, passed in Complaint Case No. 2069 (C) of 2002 by Sri Kanhaiya Ram, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, rejecting the application of the complainant-petitioner filed under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to get examined herself and also the order dated 22.05.2009, passed in Criminal Revision No. 264 of 2009 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE07H DAY OF SEPTEMBER2016BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.263 OF2007CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.264 OF2007CRIMINAL APPEAL No.265 OF2007IN CRL.A.No.263/2007 BETWEEN: Sri. S. Madhava Reddy, Son of Narayana Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Residing at No.55, N.T.I.Layout, R.M.V.2nd Stage, Bhoopasandra Main Road, Bangalore 560 094. (By Shri M.N.Madhusudhan, Advocate ) APPELLANT2AND: Smt. Mangamma, Wife of B. Vemareddy, Major, Residing at 10th Main, 6th Cross, M.C.C.Extension, B Block, Davanagere. RESPONDENT (By Shri N.K.Siddeswara, Advocate ) ***** This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the appellant praying to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.12.2006 passed by the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and XX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City in C.C.No.14293/2004 and acquitting the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1958CriLJ1144
ORDERGokhale, J.1. (After stating the facts his Lordship proceeded;)Before I consider the evidence against the accused and the arguments addressed to us at great length on behalf of the accused on the evidence, I think it would be convenient to dispose of first some of the law points which have been argued on behalf of the accused. I may mention that ordinarily we would have expected Counsel to address us on law points at the very outset. But Mr. Purshottam informed us that he would address us on the law points after he dealt with the merits of the case against the accused on the basis of the evidence on the record. The first law point raised by Mr. Purshottam is in connection with the charge. I may mention that in the first instance Mr. Purshottam and Mr. Harnamsingh, who appeared on behalf of accused No. 2, took exception only to the second and the third heads of the charge. It was Mr. Bhasme, who was appointed on behalf of accused Nos. 5 and 6, who challenged the legality of the ent...
Tag this Judgment!