Court : Kolkata
1. This is an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case was instituted by the de facto complainant under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, being BGR Case No. 256/2011 now pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It is the contention of the petitioner/de facto complainant that an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the OP No. 2 herein along with his mother before the Learned Sessions Judge, Alipore which was registered as Criminal Misc Case No. 766/2011. The said Misc Case was fixed for hearing on 11.02.2011. The said application was rejected being not pressed by the Learned Advocate of the Opposite Party No. 2 and his mother. 2. By suppressing the fact of rejection of the said application, the Opposite Party No. 2 and his mother filed another application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing Crimina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001ALLMR(Cri)2137; 2002BomCR(Cri)209; 2001CriLJ3927
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Alleged Contemner No. 1 Deelip Balaram Bedekar, an Advocate, is present in the Court, as directed by us vide our order dated 10-7-2001. By the said order, we have granted exemption from personal appearance to alleged Contemner No. 2 Nishikant Anant Bhalerao for today.2. The factual matrix in which this contempt petition arises in brief is as under.On 11-2-1997, Mr. B.R. Chaudhary, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, made a Reference, through the District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, to the Registrar, High Court (Appellate Side), Bombay, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') that action be taken against Deelip Balaram Bedekar, an Advocate, for committing the offence of criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the said Act.The circumstances in which the said Reference was made were as under.There was a Summary Criminal Case, bearing No. 347 of 1994 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Mys274; [1966]36CompCas562b(Kar); 1965CriLJ654; (1965)1MysLJ265
ORDER(1) The petitioner was appointed voluntary liquidator of a company called Rural Commercial Syndicate Ltd., by a special resolution of the Company dated 2nd November 1958. Under S. 551 of the Companies Act of 1956 he had to file statements mentioned in the section with the Registrar of Companies periodically. It appears he was filing such statements regularly until he committed default in statements relating to the period 2-5-1963 to 1-11-1963 which was due to be filed with the Registrar on or before 1-1-1964. After issuing notice to him to rectify the omission, the Registrar instituted criminal prosecution against him before the First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore.(2) The petitioner admitted his default and pleaded guilty, but placed certain circumstances before the Magistrate on the strength of which he prayed that he be pardoned. It also appears that the necessary statement was filed by him after the presentation of the complaint but before the Magistrate came to di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001CriLJ873
ORDERMaithli Sharan, J.1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out of the judgment passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar District-Guna in Criminal Appeal No. 159/97 dt. 25-6-98, maintaining the order of conviction passed against the petitioner by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ashoknagar DistrictGuna under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and enhancing the sentence of imprisonment from 8 months R.I. to one year R.I.2. The brief facts of the case, lying in a narrow compass, leading to the filing of this petition, are thus; On 5-1-90 the petitioner was arrested under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and during the search being made he was found in possession of a country made gun in two pieces for which he had no licence. The said gun, found to be in working order, was seized by the police and a case for the offence under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 was registered against the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal85,56CWN585
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Presidency Magistrate convicting the petitioner under Section 41 of the. West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 and sentencing him to one month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment he was to undergo a further period of six weeks' rigorous imprisonment.2. The complainant was the tenant of a room used as a shop which he held from the petitioner. The case for the complainant was that as the tenant of the shop he had a right to use a certain privy and water from a tap. It is said that the petitioner had not for about six months allowed him access to the privy or allowed him to take water from the tap. Therefore, it is said, an offence under Section 41 of the Rent Control Act, 1950 had been committed.3. It is clear that proceedings had been taken earlier in the court of the Rent Controller under Section 34 of the Rent Control Act, 1950 and the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1996CriLJ876
ORDERNure Alam Chowdhary, J.1. This application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the complainant Ashok Kumar Kabra, challenging the order dated 16-3-95, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Howarh in Criminal Misc. Case No. 97 of 1995 allowing the application for anticipatory bail of the opposite party No. 1 Smt. Kamala Devi Shaw and the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Kanika Devi Shaw with conditions mentioned in the order, in connection with Shibpur P. S. Case No. 273 of 1994, under Sections 409/420/120B of the I. P. C. was finally heard by his Lordships the Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. K. Bhattacharyya, by his judgment and order dated 28-6-95 had been pleased to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge with certain directions contained in the order. The opposite parties Kamala Devi Shaw and Kanika Devi Shaw thereafter filed a petition for Special Leave Petition being S. L. P. (Crl) No. 2657 of 1995, in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The present petitioners have been facing their trial of a charge under Sections 307/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Sealdah. During the trial initially the petitioners were defended by a lawyer of their own choice and by July 8, 2009 the examination of total five prosecution witnesses was concluded. Thereafter, on August 26, 2009 the learned defence Counsel moved an application before the Trial Court expressing his desire to retire from the case. Upon such application being moved the Trial Court allowed the prayer of the defence counsel and he was discharged. While making such order the Learned Trial Court engaged one Mr. P. Saha, a lawyer from the State Panel to defend the accuseds in the trial. However, on the very next day, i.e., on August 27, 2009 on behalf of the accused persons an application was moved expressing their desire to engage a new lawyer of their choice to defend them during the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 13.9.2002 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna in Complaint Case No.461(C) of 2002. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 323, 342, 365 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.461(C) of 2002 against all the four petitioners and others on an allegation of commission of offence under Sections 323, 342, 506 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code. It was disclosed in the complaint petitin that one Rameshwar Prasad Singh, grand father-in-law (Dadia Sasur) of the complainant had purchased a house over a plot appertaining to Plot No.261, Khata No.50 on his own earning and on his own volit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2957; (2005)1GLR709
J.N. Bhatt, J.Prelude (Focal Point)Let us at the very outset, evidently record, remember, and recollect that ;'A civilisation is judged by the way it treats its criminals.'1. In this group of criminal appeals, specially assigned to the Larger Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the central theme, the core issue and the main point, in focus, has been, as to whether the trial Court, on being satisfied or in presence of special and adequate reasons peculiar to the accused, to be mentioned in writing, in the judgment of the Court, in finding accused guilty, 'for a first offence' either by evidence or 'by raising the plea of guilty'; is competent to impose for such 'first offence';(i) a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months and fine of less than Five Hundred Rupees for the offence punishable under the proviso to Sub-clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the 'Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949'. (B. P. Act')?And(ii) a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Dr. Rajesh Talwar has filed Transfer Petition (Crl.) no. 45 of 2012 and Dr. Mrs. Nupur Talwar has filed Transfer Petition (Crl.) no. 46 of 2012. These petitions have been filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for the transfer of Special Case No. 01/2011 pending before the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) 2Ghaziabad, U.P., to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Delhi/New Delhi. Both these petitions are being disposed of by a common order, because the prayers made are identical and are based on the same grounds, arising out of the same factual background.2. Before dealing with the grounds raised by the petitioners, it is necessary to briefly record the sequence of events leading to the filing of the instant transfer petitions. The prosecution under reference pertains to the murder of Aarushi Talwar, daughter of the two petitioners, namely, Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Mrs. Nupur Talwar, on the night intervening 15.5.2008 and 16.5.2008. On...
Tag this Judgment!