Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR625
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The short point which arises in this case is whether Section 516AA of the Code of Criminal Procedure is retrospective in its operation. This question arises in this way :2. The petitioner had filed a complaint under Sections 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against one Karimkhan Sherali before the police on March 21, 1948. Subsequently a charge-sheet was submitted and the case was forwarded to the Court of the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Surat. At the end of the trial the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of the offence charged and made an order under Section 516AA of the Criminal Procedure Code that the complainant should pay Rs. 40 as costs to the accused. The learned Magistrate held that the complaint which had been filed by the complainant before the police was neither reasonable nor probable as it was not a bona fide or a genuine complaint at all. This order was challenged by the complainant by preferring a revision application in the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1976WLN234
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an application in revision filed by the State of of Rajasthan against an order of the Special Judge for Anti-Corruption Department cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated 25th September, 1975, by which ornaments, cash and silver utensils seized upon search from the house of Ram Narayan Upadhya non-petitioners, were ordered to be delivered to a superddar of the status of a person paying income-tax on a nearly income of Rs. 40,000/-, provided such Superddar gave an undertiking that he would keep ornaments, cash and utensils intact and would not in any manner dispose them of.2. The short facts giving rise to this revision-petition may be narrated as follows.3. A complaint was received against Ramnarayan Upadhaya, Enforcement Officer, Bikaner, that he, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise, abasing his position as a public servant, obtained for himself valuable things or pecuniary advantage and that be was in possession of pecuniary sources or property disproportionate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1723; I(1999)DMC275
ORDER1. Petitioner who has failed in both the courts below in claiming maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the respondent, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court to set aside the order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 80 of 1993 on the file of Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. 2. This petition arose in this way. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Chidambaram, in N.C. No. 1/92, claiming maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month. The averments made in the said petition are that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent, who is working as Engineer in Public Works Department, earning Rs. 5000/- per month. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place in 1968 as Bhuvanagiri, that the respondent was given Rs. 20,000/- and 15 sovereigns of jewels as dowry. After the marriage, they lived together for some t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)107BOMLR1454
P.B. Gaikwad, J.1. Accused Vitthal s/o Gyanba Gaikwad being dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 12.01.2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Sessions Case No. 67/1998 directing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default R.1. for six months filed present appeal. 2. The facts in nutshell leading to the present appeal are as follows : That, marriage of deceased Panchashila daughter of PW 1 Vitthal Sitaram Shinde and mother of PW2 Kavita, PW 3 Yogendra and PW 4 Savita was performed with the present appellant in the year 1979. PW 1 Vitthal Sitaram Shinde is the resident of Purna District Parbhani. After the marriage of Panchashila with the accused, she started residing with her father-in-law and mother-in-law at village Rathi-Dutka. The accused who is serving in the Irrigation Department used to visit Rathi-Dutka. After two years' of marriage, the accus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1943All26
ORDER1. This is (in application in revision by one Salig Ram who, along with 30 other persons was tried by a Special Magistrate for an offence punishable under Section 395, Penal Code. The offence that formed the subject of charge against the applicant was alleged to have boon committed on 14th August 1942. The trial was by a Special Magistrate in pursuance of the provisions of Section 10 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1942. The learned Magistrate acquitted one of the accused and convicted the remaining 30 accused. He sentenced Salig Ram to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 50 and in default of payment of fine he ordered Salig Ram to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Salig Ram appealed to the Sessions Judge who dismissed the appeal holding that no appeal lay to him in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Ordinance. Salig Ram then filed the present application in revision in this Court. The decision of the Magistrate has been assailed by Mr. Pyare Lal Banerji ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 14Ind.Cas.896
Ralph Benson, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried by a Special Bench of this Court, constituted under Section 6(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 108, for an offence punishable under Section 121A, 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 121A 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, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1977CriLJ563; 1976(9)WLN445
ORDERKalyan Dutta, J.1. This is an application-in-revision by Mansukh Ram against the judgment of the Session Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated 3rd September, 1975, whereby the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, dated 9th June, 1975, declaring that he had no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C after passing an order of attachment under Section 146(1), Criminal P.C. on. the ground of emergency, was set aside and the case was sent back to him for inquiry into the actual possession over the land in dispute on the basis of documentary and other evidence that may be adduced by the parties.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision-petition may be briefly stated as under:3. On 20th July, 1974, Mansukh Ram son of Nopa Rain Jat resident of village Nanag lodged a written report with the Station House Officer, Jhunjhunu. It was stated in the report that Ganesha Ram wanted to dispossess Nopa Ram from agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 3 and 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1970)72BOMLR820; 1970MhLJ587
Bhole, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Amravati, in a criminal revision before him arising out of an order dated October 25, 1966 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amravati, in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant Kasamshah son of Mastanshah Fakir has come here in revision.2. There was a dispute in respect of Nazul Plots Nos. 182/1 and 182/2, sheet No. 82-D, Amravati, between opponents Nos. 1 and 2 and the applicant and his deceased father. It appears that opponent No. 2 Hydershah Umarshah got the names of opponent No. 1 and of himself mutated on the ground that they were trustees of this property. It is said that there is a Durgah of Wali Kalandarshah on these two plots of land. On the other hand, the applicants claim to be in possession of this property. The applicants' complaint was that the opponents were trying to disturb their peaceful possession and there was likelihood of the breach o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1970Cal485,1974CriLJ1341,74CWN847
S.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The question which arises for determination in this case is whether the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction is competent to interfere with an order passed by a Judge of the High Court in the exercise or its original criminal jurisdiction. If it is, a further question arises whether in the facts of this case, the order of the learned Judge discharging the accused from his bail bond should be set aside.2. The accused Haridas Mundhra was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Richardson and Cruddas Ltd., and the managing director of its Managing Agents S. B. Industrial (Private) Ltd. He was being tried in the High Court Sessions on three counts of offences, under Section 418, Section 465 read with Section 471, and Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that as a director of Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. and as the managing director of Section B. Industrial Development Company (Private) Ltd., he cheated Richardson and Cruddas Ltd., in the sum of R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1975Cal450,79CWN996
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. 1. This Special Bench of three Judges has been constituted under extraordinary circumstances arising out of the present Criminal Revision Case No. 676 of 1973 as well as Criminal Revision Case No. 854 of 1973 (Bimal Chandra Samaddar v. Ranjit Samaddar). Both the Revision Cases have been heard by this Bench. In the instant case on the 16th July, 1973 a petition of complaint was filed on behalf of Shyam Sundar Singhania in the Court of the Police Magistrate at Alipore. On the same day the complainant was examined and summons was issued under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for alleged criminal breach of trust. On 27th August. 1973, the accused petitioner Tara Dutta made an application to this Court under Section 439 read with Section 561-A of the Code for quashing the proceeding. On August 27, 1973, Talukdar. J. issued a rule calling upon the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas as also Shyam Sundar Singhania to show cause as to why the proceedings com...
Tag this Judgment!