Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal199,1961CriLJ472,64CWN899
Banerjee, J. 1. This is a reference made to a Special Division Bench, under the second proviso to Rule 1, Chapter II of the High Court Appellate Side Rules. The particular question of law referred for determination is :'Whether Rule 9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Rules 1950 is ultra vires?'2. Rule 9 above referred to is quoted below : '9. In making inquiries under the Act, the Controller, the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, the District Judge or the Judicial Officer to whom the case may be transferred under the provision of Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 32 shall follow, as nearly as may be, the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 3,908, for the regular trial of suits, the substance only of the evidence being recorded as in unappealable cases and shall record in brief 'the reasons for his findings.'3. I need refer to the facts of the case briefly, so as to understand how this reference came to be made.4. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1913)ILR40Cal477
Holmwood, J.1. The question has arisen on a rule issued by us to show cause why an order made under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the Shahabad district should not be set aside, whether the Criminal Bench has jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of Civil and Revenue Courts made under that section. The rulings are very conflicting on the point and it seems necessary to have the matter settled by a Full Bench. The difficulty has been got over on more than one occasion by the appointment of a Special Bench by the Chief Justice to hear such applications, but it is obvious that this causes unnecessary delay and embarrassment to applicants, and there seems to be no reason why the matter should not be settled once for all.2. Our own view of the matter in a recent case was that there was no question as regards the jurisdiction of the High Court in sanctions under Section 195. There it is expressly laid down that any sanction given or refused u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)554; 1998CriLJ2220; ILR1998KAR2296; 1998(3)KarLJ169
ORDER1. This petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is made by the petitioner M/s. Shrei International Finance Limited, Madras with its branch office at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'financier company') praying to quash the criminal proceedings in PCR 165 of 1997 pending on the file of the Court of IV Additional C.M.M., Bangalore and also challenging the order dated 9-9-1997 of the learned Magistrate referring the private complaint of respondent 1-M.G. Narayana ('complainant' for short) under Section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code to the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Byatrayanpura, Bangalore City for investigation and report.2. Respondent 2-Baruva is shown as the General Manager and respondent 3-Mr. Surendra as the Field Officer of A1 Finance Company. They are accused 2 and 3 in the said complaint. Therefore, they are hereinafter referred to as 'A2' and 'A3'. Respondent 4 is impleaded in the petition since the vehicle in question was purchased by him.3. The u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)1GLR33
Akil Kureshi, J.1. In this reference, following question has been referred to the Full Bench:In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shahada Ors. v. Amjad Ali and Ors. : 1999CriLJ5060 , when a person is ordered to pay maintenance under Sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 fails without sufficient cause to comply with such order, whether the learned Magistrate, in exercise of powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 125 is empowered to sentence such person to imprisonment for a term exceeding one month.2. Factual background leading to the question is as follows:Special Criminal Application No. 897 of 2008 has been filed by one Rama Muru Pariya, through Jail against the judgment and order dated 15th March 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhalia, Dist: Jamnagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 141 of 2007. By the said decision, the learned Judge was pleased to modify the order da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal150
Harries, C.J.1. These are two petitions for the issue of writs of certiorari to quash proceedings which have taken place and which are taking place before a Special Judge at Alipore under the West Bengal Special Courts Act of 1950. The two petitions came before Bose J. for hearing. In the view of the learned Judge the petitions raised points of great importance and difficulty and he accordingly referred them to the Chief Justice for decision by a larger Bench. This Bench of five Judges has been constituted to hear and decide the petitions.2. Civil Rule No. 942 of 1951 has been preferred by one Anwar Ali Sarkar who with forty-nine other persons was tried by a Special Judge appointed under the West Bengal Special Courts Act of 1950 (Act X of 1950)upon charges of murder, conspiracy to murder to commit grievous hurt with deadly weapons, and to commit mischief. There were also charges under the Explosive Substances Act and a charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1997CriLJ1586
Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.1. These five appeals, (1) Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1996 (Ranjit Mondal and Sajal Barui alias Papa v. State), (2)Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1996 (Alok Saha alias Toto v. State), (3) Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1996 (Debashish Dey v. State), (4) Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1996 (Subhrasil Ray alias Raja v. State) and (5) Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1996 (Samar Saha alias Euro v. State), have been preferred against the same judgment dated January 10, 1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat in Sessions Trial No. 4(9) of 1994. In the impugned judgment the learned Judge convicted the appellant Sajal Barui alias Papa Under Sections 302/34, I.P.C., 201, I.P.C. and Under Section 120-B, I.P.C. and sentenced him to death by hanging and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- i.d., to suffer R.I. for one year on his conviction Under Section 302/ 34, I.P.C., and sentenced him to R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. to R.I. for six months on his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. C.S. Agarwal, the appellant in LPA No.819 of 2010, had filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No.57 of 2010 invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking appropriate writ for quashing the FIR No.264/2009 dated 23.12.2009 lodged against him and others by the Economic Offences Wing, Crime and Railways, Delhi under Sections 420/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The said writ petition has been dismissed vide orders dated 11.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and against that order LPA No.819 of 2010 has been preferred by C.S. Agarwal. 2. Another accused in the said FIR is D.K. Jain. He has also filed LPA No.825 of 2010 challenging the same judgment, inter alia, on the ground that some of the observations in the said orders are prejudicial to him and therefore, he is also an aggrieved party. The respondents took a primary objection to the maintainability of these LPAs cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant24; AIR1960Mys24; 1960CriLJ258
ORDER(1) The petitioners are the accused in C. C. 30 of 1957 on the file of the sub Divisional Magistrate of Hospet. Petitioners 1 to 5 have been convicted of an offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25; all the six petitioners have also been convicted of an offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The convictions and sentences have also been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Bellary on appeal by the petitioners.(2) The complainant, who is the 2nd respondent before me, was a tenant under one Raghavendrachar, who is D. W. 1 in the case. It is the complainant's case that he has been in possession for a number of years as tenant under Raghavendrachar. On 20-2-1957 Raghavendrachar executed a sale deed in favour of the 1st petitioner in respect of the land under the occupation of the complainant. On 22-2-1957, that is two days after the sale, the incid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2775
Jayant Patel, J.1. The present appeal arises against the Judgment and the Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 62/01, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and has imposed sentence for life imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 500/-.2. When the matter is taken up for final hearing, the learned APP declared before the Court that the accused is absconding since 23.07.2004. He has also placed on record the Jail report received by him. Under these circumstances, the accused-appellant is reported absconding by the learned APP.3. In normal circumstances, if the appellant-accused is not represented through the lawyer, the Court may proceed to examine the merits of the matter. However, such situation may arise if the presence of the accused is secured, may be by releasing him on bail or he may be in the custody. Neither situation exist in the present case. The learned APP drew the attention o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal261,1963CriLJ579,67CWN297
P.B. Mukharji, J.1.This is a petition by Ranjit Kumar Ghosh under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is directed for the release of a person called Sanat Chandra Bose, son of a well-known Solicitor of the City, Akshoy Chandra Bose, deceased. The main ground of the petition is that the said Sanat Chandra Bose was being unlawfully and illegally detained at a place called Lumbini Park said to be a Mental Hospital and Clinic run by the Indian Psycho-analytical Society, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The main contention of the petitioner is that the said Sanat Chandra Bose is not a lunatic at all.2. There are four respondents to this petition. The first two are respectively the Secretary of the Indian Psycho-analytical Society and the Superintendent of the Lumbini Park (respondents NOS. 1 and 2): the third respondent is Rabindra Nath Mitra alleged to be the guardian of the person of said Sanant Chandra ...
Tag this Judgment!