Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)420; 1998CriLJ1959
ORDER1. The interesting question that arises in this petition is : Whether in the proceedings initiated in a private complaint, one of the accused is entitled to the copy of the complaint, even when the other accused persons do not appear before the Court : 2. The facts that are relevant to dispose of the present petition are these : The complainant who is the respondent herein filed a complaint against a partnership firm (A1) and two others, including the petitioner (A3) being a partner of the partnership firm, for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On receipt of summons, the petitioner appeared before the lower Court on 19-9-1997. The second accused Mrs. Brinda Vaidyanathan did not appear on that date. However, a petition under section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on her behalf of the same was allowed. The bearing was adjourned to 26-9-1997 for her presence. At this juncture, the petitioner filed an application in Crl. M.P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 36Ind.Cas.483; (1916)31MLJ440
Oldfield, J.1. It is not disputed that interference, with the order of the District Munsif, granting sanction, can be justified only under Section 115(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. Both the learned Judges have dealt with the case on that assumption and it is therefore unnecessary to refer to authorities in support of it. Abdur Rahim, J., further referred to Section 15 of the Charter Act and something was said regarding it by accused's counsel. We have however been shown only one reported case, in which this Court proceeded under it in circumstances similar to those now in question: Palaniappa Chetti v. Annamalai Chetti I.L.R. (1903) M. 223 and the facts in it were of a very special character. I moreover agree with Ayling, J., that our power of superintendence should be invoked only in exceptional cases; and. this is not one. The question then is whether the District Munsif in the words of Section 115(c) acted in passing his order illegally or with material irregularity in the exercis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2000]241ITR323(MP); 1999(2)MPLJ19
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioners (accused) have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10 of 1986 of the court of the ACJM (Economic Offences), Indore.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the non-applicant, Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Khandwa, filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Indore, against the petitioners and the deceased partners of the firm, Kanhaiyalal Deepchand Jain, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 276E/ 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is alleged that during the course of assessment proceedings for the year 1983-84 of applicant No. 1, the asses-see-firm, it was found that the firm repaid the loan amount in cash, i.e., otherwise than by account payee cheques or the draft, respectively, to Smt. Basanti Bai wife of Kanhaiyalal ; Rajeshkumar Roopchand, Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 10,200 when ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1999)156CTR(MP)261
ORDERS. B. Sakrikar, J.The unsuccessful petitioners (accused) have filed this petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10/86 of the Court of ACJM (Economic Offences), Indore.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the non-applicant, Income Tax Officer 'A' Ward, Khandwa, filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences), Indore, against the petitioners and deceased partners of the firm M/s Kanhaiyalal Deepchand Jain alleging commission of offence punishable under section 276E/278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is alleged that during the course of assessment proceedings for the year 1983-84 of the applicant No. 1, assessee-firm, it was found that the firm repaid the loan amount in cash i.e., otherwise that A/c Payee cheques or the draft, respectively, to Smt. Basanti Bai W/o Kanhaiyalal; Rajeshkumar Roopchand Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 10,200 when the balance in their account was exceeding Rs. 10,000....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1908)ILR30All66
George Knox, J.1. The Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut in an appeal pending before him entered in his judgment the following observation: 'All accused persons are of right entitled to be defended by a pleader and the definition of 'pleader' in the Criminal Procedure Code does not include mukhtars; special permission of the Court has to be obtained for the representation of an accused person by other than a pleader; but Magistrates seem to take it as a matter of course that mukhtars should appear. While this is so, the standard of morals in the Courts can never improve. I dismiss this appeal and order that a copy of this judgment be Bent to the District Magistrate for information.' Upon receipt of this the District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar issued the following order: 'Mukhtars can appear under Section 4 (r) (1) only with the Court's permission. Draw all Courts' attention to this section.2. It is contended before as that both these orders, namely, the order of the Additional Sessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)22MLJ490
Benson, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried by a Special Bench of this Court, constituted under Section 6(6) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, for an offence, punishable under Section 121 A, Indian Penal Code (conspiring to commit certain offences against the State), and also with abetting the murder of Mr. Ashe. The Special Bench acquitted all the accused on the latter charge. The majority of the Court (Sir Arnold White, C.J. and Ayling, J.) convicted the first seven and the 14th accused of the offence, charged under Section 121 A and acquitted the remainder. The third Judge of the Special Bench (Sankaran Nair, J.) convicted the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 14th accused and acquitted the remainder. The late Advocate-General has given a certificate under Clause 26 of the Amended Letters Patent of 1865 to the effect that the decision of the Court on certain specified points of law requires further consideration. The present Advocate-General, who, as Public Prosecutor, appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. I have had the privilege of going through the erudite exposition of an arguable point of law which merits the depth of articulation as is done by my brother Judges Kanade and Thipsay. The point of law required to be decided merits enunciation of settled principles of interpretation of statutes for reading a clear provision as per its own terms, reading it along with every other provision in the chapter in which it appears, reading the statute as a whole and deciphering the intention of the legislature that propelled the enactment given the state of affairs that prevailed before the enactment, the mischief that was apparent and the mode in which the legislature sought to remedy it. The 'heyden's rule' or the 'mischief rule', which is the well settled principle of law, must be present to the mind of any interpretor of such enactment and which has been present to the mind of my brother Judges and must not be lost sight of.The crime problem is the overdue debt a society pays for tolerat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2003(2)MPHT65(CG)
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J.1. This reference has been made by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazaar, Raipur, under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 2636/2001.2. The relevant facts leading up to the reference are that one Criminal Case No. 388/94 (State v. Tirathram and 3 others) for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code was pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazaar, Raipur, in which the charges were framed against the accused persons and matter was fixed for evidence of the prosecution on 4th July, 2000 but the matter was disposed of on 23rd July, 2000 on the basis of the compromise entered between the parties. An application under Section 320(4)(b) of Cr.PC was filed by one Jivan with the averments that he be permitted to compound the offence on behalf of his deceased brother/injured/complainant Firtu alongwith an application ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1978)80BOMLR727; 1978MhLJ817
Masodkar, J.1. This matter was placed before us on March 7, 1978, and we directed notice before admission to be issued to the State. It appears that the matter was so placed before this Bench because of the order made by the learned single Judge in a similar application) in Ratan Hiranand Khatri v. The State of Maharashtra (1976) Criminal Application No. 2659 of 1976. The learned single Judge appears to have made that order for two reasons, firstly, because the public prosecutor appearing for the State raised a point that every application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be placed for hearing before the division Bench and not before single Judge and secondly, because the office informed that all applications under Section 561A of 1898 Code as well under Section 482 of 1973 Code were being placed for orders before division Bench and not before a single Judge. It is indeed clear from that order that the learned single Judge has not made any reference as such to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1958All492; 1958CriLJ834
V. Bhargava, J.1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment proposed to be delivered by my brother Mulls, J. I agree with him that Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable in the case of a Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act No. 46 of 1952, but I would like to give the reasons for my opinion in my own language. My brother, Mulla, J., has already discussedthe three relevant decisions of the Madras, the Patna and the Punjab High Courts and it does not appear to be necessary for me to comment on those cases again.2. It appears to me that, in designating the Court, which is empowered to try cases under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, as a Court of a Special Judge, the legislature clearly intended to indicate that a Special Judge will neither be a Magistrate nor a Court of Session as constituted under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Had there been any intention that the Special Judge was to be a Magistrate or a court of session, it ...
Tag this Judgment!