Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Adv. Mr. R.G. Hange for the applicant, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent. 2. At the request of learned Counsel for the applicant, leave granted to delete the provision of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from the present Application. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the order 17-7-2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, be quashed and set aside, and the applicant be allowed to withdraw the said Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, pending before the said court. 5. The respondent herein, through Dr. Gauri Raghunath Rathod, Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Beed, i.e. original complainant, had filed criminal case being R.C.C. No. 898/2011 agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Adv. Mr. R.G. Hange for the applicant, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent. 2. At the request of learned Counsel for the applicant, leave granted to delete the provision of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from the present Application. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the order 17-7-2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, be quashed and set aside, and the applicant be allowed to withdraw the said Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, pending before the said court. 5. The respondent herein, through Dr. Gauri Raghunath Rathod, Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Beed, i.e. original complainant, had filed criminal case being R.C.C. No. 898/2011 agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Criminal Revn. No.2227 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revn. No.2227 of 2013 Date of Decision: July 14, 2014 Vikramjit Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Present Mr.SS Goraya, Advocate for Mr.Saurav Kharana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.PS Grewal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.MS Khaira, Senior Advocate with Mr.RS Khaira, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3. TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.5.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby an application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning Swaran Singh and Prabhjot Kaur i.e. respondents No.2 and 3 herein as additional accused to face trial along with main accused Dilraj Singh has been dismissed.2. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.3. Brief facts that would requir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 104(2007)CLT488(SC); 2007CriLJ3181; (2008)1GLR1(SC); RLW2007(4)SC3074; 2007(7)SCALE241; (2007)5SCC786
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.Appellant herein was awarded contracts for exporting wheat, rice etc. upon purchasing the same from Food Corporation of India as also from open market, by the State Trading Corporation of India, Chennai and Kolkata as also West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Limited. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein allegedly approached him for appointment as its agent to arrange and supply foodgrains i.e. wheat and rice of the Food Corporation of India and send the same to different destinations in West Bengal on commission basis. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said agreement, Respondent No. 1 under the direction of Respondent No. 2 used to make arrangement of railway rakes at different railway stations in the State of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttaranchal, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana for export of rice and wheat from Food Corporation of India to Bangladesh for and on behalf of the appellant. Allegedly, in course of rendition such services, respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC574; [1962]2SCR265
Gajendragadkar, J.1. On June 13, 1950, the Municipal Committee, Ajmer, respondent 2, issued a notice against the appellant, the Durgah Committee, Ajmer, under S. 153 of the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation, 1925 (VI of 1925) (hereafter called the Regulation) calling upon it to carry out certain repairs in the Jhalra Wall which was in a dilapidated condition. The appellant did not comply with the said requisition and so respondent 2 served another notice on the appellant under s. 220 of the Regulation intimating to it that the required repairs would be carried out at the expense of respondent 2 and that the cost incurred by it would be recovered from the appellant. This notice was served on July 3, 1950. Even so the appellant took no steps to make the repairs and so respondent 2 proceeded to get the repair work done at its expense which amounted to Rs. 17,414. Under s. 222(4) of the Regulation this sum became recoverable from the appellant as a tax. A notice of demand in that beh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)1MLJ260
Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 30.8.1993 in W.P. No. 16175 of 1993, whereunder the learned single Judge has issued directions as hereunder, while finally disposing of the main writ petition, even at the stage of hearing for admission, on hearing the counsel for the 1st respondent herein/writ petitioner:After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the affidavit filed herein, without going into the merits of the case, I think it suffice to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's petition filed under Section 52 of the Act for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the penalty amount, on merits and in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this order, if the same has not been disposed of already, till such time, the further proceedings before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in S.O.C.C. No. 309 of 1993 shall stand stayed. However, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1962All450
D.S. Mathur, J.1. This order governs Criminal Revisions Nos. 1502 to 1505 of 1960 by the Municipal Board of Bijnor against the judgments of Sri Sachidanand, Assistant Sessions Judge, Bijnor whereby Criminal Appeals preferred by Bhim Singh, Baldeo Singh Kishore and Kailash Chandra alias Munnoo were allowed. The Criminal Revisions were presented, before me as Application Judge on 6-9-1960 with office reports dated 31-8-1960. The office did not make a note that the revisions were being presented in Court directly without first of all approaching the Sessions Judge. This fact was also not brought to the notice of the Application Judge, but the facts as detailed in the hearing of the revisions would have indicated that no revision had been made before the Sessions Judge and the applicant was challenging the order of discharge directly before the High Court, It cannot, therefore, be said that the applicant was guilty of, or was in any way responsible for concealment of facts.The fact, howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT343
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI) have come up with these appeals aggrieved by the common judgment in W.P.C. No. 27289 of 2003 and O.P. No. 23400 of 2002 quashing all proceedings in C.C. No. 513 of 1995 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Appeals have also been filed by the widow of Maniyeri Madhavan, the complainant.2. Counsel appearing for the CBI Sri. S. Sreekumar submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has the effect of nullifying the decisions of the Apex Court in Maniyeri Madhavan v. Sub Inspector of Police, (1994) 1 SCC 536, Prem Shankar v. CBI, 1998 (2) KLT 103 and K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector General of Police, (2002) 8 SCC 87, and the various directions contained therein with regard to the same subject matter.3. Senior Counsel Sri. T.P. Kelu Nambiar, appearing for the respondents in W. A. No. 1979 of 2004 as well as the counsel app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)2CALLT164(HC)
Rajendra Nath Sinha, J.1. This is to consider an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by an order dated 12.3.2003 passed by Sri Sukumar Chakraborty, Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Midnapore in Criminal Revision No. 22 of 1994 affirming the order dated 31.8.1994 passed by Sri M. Murmu, Executive Magistrate, Midnapore in M.R. Case No. 104(S) of 1986 under Section 147 of Code of Criminal Procedure directing the Dwaraka Prosad Agarwal (since deceased) to remove the illegal construction or to demolish the construction of brick wall and iron gate of the premises.2. In short the petition is that R.S. Plot No. 868 of Mouza Kharagpur Khas Jungle measuring an area of 0.10 acre of land belonged to one Gorelala. On 7.7.1959 he sold 7 decimals out of 10 decimals of land to one Pyarelal and the rest 3 decimals of land was sold to Badami Devi on 25.1.62. Pyarelal purchased Badami's 3 decimals of land on 23.6.1964, thus, became the owner of 10 decimals...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1985(2)BomCR633
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the orders passed by the Special Judge, Kolhapur on five applications filed by the petitioners for various reliefs in Special Case No. 1 of 1983.2. Petitioner Nos 1 to 13 (Original Accused Nos. 1 and 4 to 15 in Special Case No. 1 of 1983) are public servants being members of the Police force. At the material time petitioner No. 1 was working as a Sub-divisional Police Officer at the city sub-divisional of Kolhapur city. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 8 who are Police constables were attached to the Laxmipuri Police Station at Kolhapur. Petitioner Nos. 9, 10 and 13 were attached to Police headquarters and petitioner Nos. 11 and 12 were working as wireless operators at the Police Control Room at Kolhapur and petitioner Nos. 14 and 15 (original accused Nos. 15 and 17) are panch witnesses who attested the panchanama; alleged to be ma...
Tag this Judgment!