Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1969CriLJ757; (1968)2MysLJ511
ORDER1. The above revision petition arises out of the order passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8 of 1966 regarding the disposal of scooter which was seized from the petitioner, to the second respondent-complainant Dr. Ajit Kumar Singh or Bowring Hospital.2. Facts in brief are these:--3. The scooter in question belonged to the second respondent (complainant). On 3-9-1965, it was lost at the Bowring Hospital at Bangalore. Immediately after the scooter was lost, the second respondent filed a complaint before the Commercial Street Police who registered a case for an offence of theft in Crime No. 262/65. Investigation was being conducted by the police of the Commercial Street Police Station. In the meanwhile, on 10-11-1965, the scooter was found deserted near Viranchipuram. The police of Viranchipuram found the scooter abandoned on the road and seized it and produced it before the Tahsildar and Administrative Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR2699
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this Cr. Revision challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order impugned dated 26.7.2008 passed under Section 127(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No. 167 of 2005 by which the maintenance amount, which was earlier given to Smt. Anasuya, opposite party herein to the tune of Rs. 350/- per month was enhanced on her petition dated 4.10.2007 to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- per month directing the petitioner to pay w.e.f. 4.10.2007.2. The fact of the case in short was that the opposite party preferred a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Jamshedpur which was registered as Misc. Case No. 30 of 1988 and the same was allowed in terms of the order dated 24.7.1993 asking the petitioner to pay Rs. 350/- per month since 24.7.1993.3. The opposite party after a long interval preferred a petition under Section 127(1) of Cr.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker218
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner in this revision petition complained to the Police that accused 1 to 5 and fifteen others committed theft of livestock, agricultural produce and implements worth Rs. 873/- from the land in his possession and the huts thereon. The police sent up a report that the allegations were false. Thereupon the petitioner preferred a complaint before the Second Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. As there was undue delay in the disposal of the case, the District Magistrate Quilon, transferred the case to his file and tried it. Holding that the complaint was false and vexatious, he discharged the accused and ordered the complainant to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the four surviving accused. The complainant who was present in court when the judgment was delivered stated that the complaint was true and that the witnesses had turned hostile as he had evicted them from the property during the trial of the case. The District Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Cri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(1)BomCR519; 1991(1)MhLj984
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. By this petition, filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the limited relief claimed by the petitioners is that the prosecutions instituted against them by the Income Tax authorities in Criminal Case Nos. 99/S, 119/S, 124/S, to 126/S of 1977 and 1/S to 3/S of 1983 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Rallard Estate, Bombay he stayed until disposal of the Income Tax Reference No. 120 of 1981 which is pending before the High Court.2. The petitioners, along with certain other persons who have since passed away, filed an application dated 13th January 1983 before the trial Court praying for stay of the prosecutions under section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Income Tax department had prosecuted the petitioners, essentially alleging an offence under section 277 of the Income Tax Act contending that certain miscalculations have been made be them in relation to their assessment. The petitioners re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)ALD(Cri)263; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)256
ORDER1. The petitioners who are accused in S.T.C. No. 62 of 1998 invoke the inherent powers of this Court to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 62 of 1998 on the file of Spl. Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad.2. The facts that arise for consideration can be succinctly stated as follows :The 1st petitioner is a Government company. Petitioners 2 and 3 are directors in the office of the said company at the time of filing of complaint. Under Section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') as amended by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1977 there is a statutory obligation on the part of the company and its directors to file the approved balance sheet and profit and loss account within 30 days before the Registrar of Companies after laying them before the annual general meeting. The audited balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company as on 30-6-1989 have to be laid before the annual general meeting to be held on 31 -12-1989 as required under Section 210 of the Act. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IVAD(Delhi)701; 1998(3)Crimes541; 75(1998)DLT86; 1999(48)DRJ660; 1998RLR492
ORDERA.K. Srivastava, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of order dated dated 13.1.1998 passed in case FIR No. 925/97 under Section 366 IPC, P.S.Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi by Smt. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, Mahila Court.2. By the impugned order one Shiv Kumari, daughter of the petitioner, has been directed to be released to her husband (respondent No.2) on furnishing a Super-digamma in the sum of rupees twenty five thousand with the condition that he will produce the prosecutrix as and when directed by the court.3. The petitioner had lodged the aforesaid FIR against respondent No.2 for having kidnapped Shiv Kumari which was registered under Section 366 IPC. On this FIR being registered, respondent No.2 was arrested and Shiv Kumari, the prosecutrix, was brought before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate. She was sent to Nari Niketan and respondent No.2 was released on bail by the court of Sessions. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003CriLJ3327; 2003(1)KLT844
ORDERK.K. Denesan, J. 1. Revision petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. 2/2001 on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class III, Trivandrum. Commission of offence punishableunder Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged against the petitioner. Date of occurrence is 21.12.1999. FIR was registered on 20.2.2000 as Crime No. 47/2000 of Museum Police Station and subsequently renumbered as Crime No. 46/CR/2000 by the Crime Branch CID, Investigation, Trivandrum.2. On 25.2.2000 accused filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionbefore this Court as OP. No. 6210/00 in which the State of Kerala was respondentNo. 1 and the Director General of Police was respondent No. 2. Respondents 3 to 5were the Section H.O., Museum Police Station, the de facto complainant and the husbandof the de facto complainant respectively. The main prayer in the above O.P. was toquash Crime No. 47/2000 of the Museum Police Station. 3. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR676
ORDERPatil, J.1. A question of law common to all these cases arises for decision. Therefore they are heard together and proposed to be disposed of by common order.2. AH the three cases arise from Ramdurg Police Station. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners is one punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by reason of the contravention of Clauses of the Edible Oil Dealers Licencing Order 1977. In one case, it is said, the accused petitioner was carrying on business without licence. In the other cases, the accused-petitioners had not complied with the conditions of the licence. The alleged offence is said to have come to the notice on 5-8-1983. All the three accused, it is not disputed, were also arrested on the same day and were released on bail. Offences being triable as summons case by a Special Judge as provided under Section 12AA(1)(f) of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, the investigation had to be completed and cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR698
J.C. Shah, J.1. The question which falls to be determined in these appeals is whether in exercise of the power under Section 94(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Court has authority to summon a person accused of an offence before it to produce a document or a thing in his possession. The words of the clause are general: they contain no express limitation nor do they imply any restriction excluding the person accused of an offence from its operation. In terms the section authorises any Court or any officer in charge of a police-station to issue a summons or written order to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be requiring such person to attend and produce it at the time and place indicated in the summons or order. The scheme of the Code also appears to be consistent with that interpretation. Chapter VI of the Code deals with process to compel appearance. A Court may under Section 68 issue a summons for the attendance of any person whether a...
Tag this Judgment!