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 : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : II(1997)DMC533
M. Srinivasan, C.J.1. This case has come before us on a reference by a Single judge of this Court. The question referred to is :'Whether in the face of the provisions of Sections 2(6) and 2(32) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1995 the cases under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which were pending on the date of coming into force of the Act before Courts, are liable to be transferred in the absence of there being any specific provision in the Act ?'2. The learned Judge could not agree with the view expressed by Justice Vaidya in Hari Devi v. Bhagat Singh & Anr., 1996(2) S.L.J. 1625, that on the passing of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 the cases pending before the Judicial Magistrate shall be transferred to the Gram Panchayat.3. The facts have been set out in the order of reference. It is not necessary to repeat the same herein. Suffice it to point out that the Himachal Pradesh Panchyati Raj Act, 1968 (Act 19 of 1970) was repealed by the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The Central Bureau of Investigation [Hereinafter `CBI'] has approached this Court by way of Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 219-220 of 2009 as contemplated under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Hereinafter `CrPC'], seeking transfer of cases RC IMPH 2009/S0002 and RC IMPH 2009/S0003, both dated 02-04-09, from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ukhrul, Manipur to a competent Criminal court in Delhi.2. In these cases, the respondent has been accused of the kidnapping and murder of three government employees in the State of Manipur. It would be useful to provide an overview of the fact-situation leading up to the present litigation. On 13-2-2009, Dr. Thingnam Kishan Singh (S.D.O., Kasom Khullen, Distt. Ukhrul) along with five staff members was abducted by militants while on their way from Ukhrul to Kasom Khullen. On 14-2-2009, three of the abducted persons, namely Sh. Ram Singh Siro, Sh. Ramthing Singlai and Sh. Kapangkhui Jajo were released. Following this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1995)124CTR(Cal)201,[1995]211ITR79(Cal)
Ruma Pal J.1. The subject-matter of the challenge in this writ application is a complaint filed under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (referred to as 'the Act'). The assessment year in question is 1984-85. Cognizance has been taken of the complaint by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, and the proceedings have been numbered as Case No. C/1286 of 1992 against the accused. Each of the petitioners including the petitioner-company is an accused in the case.2. The background of the facts leading to the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the writ petitioners briefly stated is as follows :On December 5, 1983, the petitioner-company filed a writ application (C. R. No. 12099/(W) of 1/983), inter alia, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 43B of the Act. A rule was issued and an interim order was passed restraining the respondent authorities from applying the provisions of Section 43B of the Act with regard to the assessment of the petitioner...
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!Court : Karnataka
1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings initiated in PCR No.27/2011. on the file of Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore City and quash the order dated 03.12.2011 referring the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, for investigation by Lokayukta Police. 2. I have heard Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy learned counsel for I-respondent and II respondent Sri T.J.Abraham, Party-impression. 3. The relevant averments of complaint as they relate to petitioner are as follows: - (a) In the month of July 2006, one Sri Janardhana Reddy, MIX. said 10 have made allegation that the petitioner has collected bribe of Rs. 150 crores from the Miners and the same was published in "The Hindu" News Paper dated 15"July 2006. (b) The petitioner has approved the Mining Lease illegally in favour of M/s. Shree Sai Venkateshwara Minerals in respect of 550 acres of land in Jog. Thimmappagudi. Vhavihalli. NEB Range. Sandur Taluk. Bellarv Di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.1. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, at the relevant time, was working as a Junior Engineer with the Delhi Jal Board. Surinder Singh, a Constable with the Delhi Police applied to the Delhi Jal Board, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’, for water connection in the name of his wife Sheela Devi. The application for grant of water connection was cleared by the Assistant Engineer and the file was sent to said Ajay Kumar Tyagi (hereinafter refered to as ‘the accused’).2. Constable Surinder Singh lodged a report with the Anti Corruption Branch alleging that the accused demanded bribe of Rs. 2000/- for clearing the file and a sum of Rs. 1000/- was to be paid initially and the balance amount after the clearance of file. On the basis of the information lodged, a trap was laid and, according to the prosecution, the accused demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 1000/-. This led to registration of the first information report under Section 7/13 of the Prevent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(5)BomCR221; 2000BomCR(Cri)221; 1999CriLJ1908
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The petitioner is seeking to challenge the Order dated 13-7-1998 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 29 of1998 by the Sessions Judge at Panaji. The learned Sessions Judge has, by the impugned order, confirmed the Order dated 19-6-1998 passed in C.C. No. 3/92/C by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji. By the said Order, the learned Magistrate had declined to direct the complainant/ respondent No, 1 to furnish to the accused/petitioner a copy of the complaint to police lodged by the complainant in the Police Station at Panaji. According to the petitioner, although in case of private complaint there is no provision for furnishing copies of the documents on which the complainant wants to rely upon such copies are necessary for effective cross-examination of the complainant and his witnesses by or on behalf of the accused and great prejudice may result if copies of such documents are not furnished in advance to the accused and it may am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(2)ALD(Cri)755; 2000(5)BomCR877; 1999CriLJ3806; 1999(3)MhLj881
ORDERD. D. Sinha, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. All the above referred criminal revision applications are directed against the same impugned order dated 13-8-1998 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur whereby non-applicants/accused S.M. Damle, D.A. Gadgil and Surin Usgaonkar came to be released on anticipatory bail in Crime No. 245/ 1998 under sections 406, 420 and 468 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, all these matters are disposed of by this common judgment.3. The State of Maharashtra as well as complainant Dakshindas challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 13-8-1998 on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons because the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. According to Shri Mardikar, learned Counsel for the State, and Shri Pendharkar, learned Counsel for the complainant, the very approach of the learned Additional Sess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006CriLJ1270; 2006(3)MhLj163
V.G. Palshikar, Acg. C.J.1. The above writ petitions were heard by us and the judgment was reserved. Then I prepared the judgment of the Bench in November, 2005 and circulated it to my learned colleagues on the Bench. However to my dismay, I was informed by both my colleagues that they do not agree with the view taken by me on the presumption that they agree with me. I then read the majority view rendered by Hon'ble Shri Justice D.B. Bhosale. Having given my anxious consideration to the views expressed I found it impossible to agree with the majority view. Hence this opinion.2. I regret my incapacity to convince my learned colleagues to the view that I propagated. In my humble opinion, the majority view has the result of virtually destroying the safeguards provided under the MCOC Act. The majority view reads several things into the Act which are not legislated. It has the effect of permitting the Special Court under the Act not only to take cognizance of private complaint alleging comm...
Tag this Judgment!