Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC876; [1962]Supp2SCR297
S.K. Das, J. 1. I regret that I have come to a conclusion different from that of my learned brethren in these appeals. I proceed now to state the necessary facts, the arguments advanced before us and my conclusions on the various questions urged. 2. By an order dated April 10, 1961 this Court granted special leave asked for by the two appellants herein, Pramatha Nath Talukdar and Saurindra Mohan Basu, to appeal to this Court from two orders made by the High Court Calcutta, one dated December 22/23, 1960 and the other dated March 17, 1961. By the first order a Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed two applications in revision which the appellants had made to the said High Court against an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta dated April 11, 1959 by which the said Magistrate issued processes against the two appellants for offences alleged to have been committed by them under Sections 467 and 471 read with s. 109 of the Indian penal Code on a complaint made by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1120; 20(1981)DLT345
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This order will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 31 of 1981 and Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 91 of 1981. (2) There is a tussle between two groups (party No. I and party No. 2) belonging to the same community, over the management of the Society known as Sarai Khalil Welfare Society and possession of seven shops attached to the Mosque described at Makki Jama Masjid, Inderlok. The first party is headed by Bhaiya Abdul Salam. The second party comprises of 6 persons and is headed by Sabiqur Rehman. The third party, that is, Mohd. Iqbal and 5 others claim to be the tenants of the 7 shops. (The 7th alleged tenant is Bhaiya Abdul Salam). (3) In 1977, the Delhi Development Authority allotted a plot of land in Inderlok to Sarai Khalil Welfare Society for construction of a Mosque. The construction of the Mosque and the shop was completed in October, 1980. Party No. 2 who claim themselves to be the members of the managing committee of the society alleged that applications for all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1999CriLJ2796
ORDERA.S. Godara, J.1. All these petitions involve common questions of law and facts and besides the litigating parties are same, therefore, as per the convenience the same are proposed to be decided by this common order.2. In S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 322/ 97, the accused-petitioner issued a cheque in favour of complainant-non-petitioner for a sum of Rs. 7,000/- on 5-2-92 and, on presentation for encashment and clearance in his own account by the non-petitioner, the same was on account of insufficiency of fund in the account of the drawer-accused, dishonored and returned as such.3. As regards S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 323/97, succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition arc that the complainant, presently, non-petitioner No. 2 in this petition, filed a criminal complaint under Section 38 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the Court of Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Sriganganagar alleging therein that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1965All508; 1965CriLJ455
S.D. Khare, J.1. This appeal has come before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge because he was of the opinion that there was someconflict in the earlier decisions of this Court, all of which were by single Judges.2. The facts of this appeal, briefly stated, are that Tej Singh (appellant) and seven others were sent up to stand their trial under Sections 366, 368, 378, 147 and 323/149, Penal Code, on a police report, which in its turn was based on a report made by Chandra-sen, husband of Sm. Bhagwati. The husband had mentioned in his report that on 25th August, 1961, while he and his wife were returning from village Manpur after plucking chillies from their fields, Tej Singh appellant accompanied by other accused persons (since acquitted) sprang out of a full-grown chad field, caught hold of Sm. Bhagwati and took her away with them. On the morning of 28th August, 1961, i.e., two days after the report had been made to the police by the husband of Smt. Bhagwati, the latter wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1967Bom41; (1966)68BOMLR233; 1967CriLJ163; ILR1966Bom756
ORDER(1) This revision application arises out of proceedings started under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chiplun, found that Party No. 1 was in possession at the material time and passed the consequential order. Against this order, Party No. 2 preferred a revision application to the Sessions Court, Ratnagiri. The learned Sessions Judge held that in view of the decision of this Court viz. Dr. Lallubhai Bhatt v. State of Bombay, he had no jurisdiction to entertain the above-mentioned revision application.(2) In this revision application, Mr. Kode for the petitioner, i.e. party No. 2 contends that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is not correct, inasmuch as the judgment of the Division Bench in the abovementioned case clearly leaves the material question open. According to Mr. Kode, the material question in this case is whether a Sub-Divisional Magistrate acting under S. 145 Cr. P. C. can be said to be an inferior Criminal Court mentioned i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1959All483; 1959CriLJ924
A.N. Mulla, J. 1. Sri C. N. Peters has been convicted under Section 161, I.P.Code and sentenced to fifteen months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months by Sri K. L. Arora, Special Judge, Lucknow. The charge against the appellant is that he demanded and received illegal gratification from Kalapnath Lal Guard on 14-2-1955 at about 4 P. M. in the Guards' Running Room at Gorakhpur Railway station.2. The prosecution story is that the appellant was posted at Gorakhpur as the Claims Prevention Inspector in the North Eastern Railway. Kalapnath Lal was a Guard in the same railway with his headquarters at Gonda. On the 8th February 1955, Kalapnath had taken a goods train from Gonda to Gorakhpur and when the train reached Gorakhpur it was found that some bags were stolen away from one of the wagons in the train. A report was made to the Government Railway Police and enquires were started.The appellant who was present at Gorakhpur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1962P& H487
ORDER(1) The petitioner, Vidya Sagar, resident of Patiala, was arrested on 28th August, 1961, on the allegation that on 16th August, 1961, he had made a speech in the Gurdawara Sri Dukh Niwaran Sahib, Patiala, which disclosed an offence under section 6(2) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 30 of 1960. The case against him was registered at the Civil Lines Police Station, Patiala, on 19th of August, 1961m vide first information report No. 83. During all these days the case has not been put in Court and the petitioner has been in custody. Now, he applies for being admitted to bail.(2) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that even on the allegations contained in the first information report no offence under Section 6(1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1960, is disclosed, and the continued detention of the petitioner without ever putting the case in Court was abuse of the process of law as the authorities are anxious to keep him in custody by hook or crook being aware of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1964Mad185; 1964CriLJ519
ORDERKailasam, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code to call for the warrant issued in S. T. 336 of 1960 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, which was endorsed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, for execution and for return of the same to the Court of issue. The petitioner alleged that he was convicted of an offence under the provisions of the Kerala Sales Tax Act for default of payment of sales tax by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. The arrears of sales tax due, a sum of Rs. 6000/- was also directed to be collected as fine. A warrant was issued by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, addressed to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras for the purpose of endorsing the warrant under the provisions of Section 387 Criminal Procedure Code and for execution. The warrant was endorsed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate and forwarded to the Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC434REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2608 OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.121 of 2024) TARSEM LAL APPELLANT VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT JALANDHAR ZONAL OFFICE RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2609 OF2024@ SLP (Crl.) No.191 of 2024 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2610 OF2024@ SLP (Crl.) No.698 of 2024 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2611 OF2024@ SLP (Crl.) No.330 of 2024 CRIMINAL APPEALNO.2612 OF2024@ SLP (Crl.) No.743 of 2024 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2613 OF2024@ SLP (Crl.) No.728 of 2024 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2614 OF2024@ SLP (Crl.) No.969 of 2024 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2615 OF2024@ SLP (Crl.) No.3928 of 2024 JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. Leave granted. Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 121 of 2024 Page 1 of 37 FACTUAL ASPECTS2 Since the issues involved are common and very little turns on facts, we broadly refer to the factual aspects. The appellants are the accused in complaints under Section 44 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Money Lau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE16H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION No.51012/2019 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.52575/2019, 15828/2021, 16081/2021, 16088/2021 (GM-RES) IN WP510122019: BETWEEN: SRI BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA MUTTAGI, S/O SHIVAPPA MUTTAGI, AGED ABOUT37YEARS, R/O MANAGUNDI VILLAGE, DHARWAD TALUK, DHARWAD DIST.-. 580 001. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SRIKANTH PATIL, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)) AND:1. . STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, 2 HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRABHULING K NAVADGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONGWITH SRI H.R. SHOWRI, HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING) SRI S.V. RAJU, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ALONGWITH SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; (VIDEO CONFERENCING) SRI VIVEK S ...
Tag this Judgment!