Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001CriLJ2742
ORDERB.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard Shri Vijay Sharma, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri N.H. Borade, learned APP for the State.2. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent, taken up for final hearing.3. This Criminal Revision Application is directed against the order dated 7-1-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No. 47 of 1994. The petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner No. 4 is their Accountant and the petitioner No. 5 is serving as Driver.4. The deceased Joytsna was married to petitioner No. 1 on 14-12-1985. Jyotsna was to attend the marriage of her brother at Beed. On 23-5-1991, the petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 were asked to reach Jyotsna to Beed. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 did not send their grandson Kalpesh along with Jyotsna. The petitioner No. 1 wanted to join Jyotsna. He left his house on Hero Honda motorcycle and overtook the vehicle. He asked the petitioner No. 5 to go back on his motorcycle to Parali an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(5)ALD735; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)623; 1998CriLJ439
P.S. Mishra, C.J. 1. Can an application for bail in anticipation of arrest as contemplated under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 be moved before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad instead of Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences 2. This Court in Superintendent Customs and Central Excise, Range II, Nellore Division, Nellore v. Elukala Krishnamachari, 1987 (32) ELT 324 (AP) has taken the view that only the Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences is competent to entertain any application under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a matter which is exclusively triable by the Special Judge for Economic Offences. Our learned brother Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J. however, has after taking notice of the Government notification in ROC. No. 1354/SO/82 dated 21-9-1982, whereby in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of S. 12 of the Code (Act II of 1974) the High Court has appointed the Additional District and Sessions Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1983CriLJ323
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. This is a revisional application by the petitioner against the order passed against him by the learned Sessions Judge directing him to make monthly allowances for the maintenance of his wife, the respondent No, 1, and his son, the respondent No. 2, on an application filed by them under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, that being the Code which is still applicable in Sikkim subject to some exceptions and modifications.2. The impugned order having been passed on 25-2-81 and the present revisional application having been filed on 8-9-81, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the present revision is barred by time. The Law of Limitation in force in Sikkim, like the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (now repealed and replaced by the Limitation Act of 1063), does not prescribe any period of limitation for any revisional application, civil or criminal. But in Kinzang Dahdul V. Ransul Kharga 1978 Cri LJ 1569 at pp. 1572-1573 it has b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1082; 1993CriLJ859; 1992(3)SCALE396; 1993Supp(4)SCC260; [1992]Supp3SCR594
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The above appeal is preferred before this Court challenging the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 2nd September 1992 rendered in Criminal Writ No. 501/91 knocking down the very registration of the First Information Report and all the proceedings arising thereon including the issue of letters rogatory in the second round of the bout of this litigation.2. The first round of the litigation came before this Court on an appeal preferred by Sh. H.S. Chowdhary challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, Justice M.K. Chawla of the High Court of Delhi dated 19th December, 1990 dismissing his petition on the ground that he has no locus standi to file his petition and a few other appeals preferred by the Union of India and some political parties which had been seriously litigated before this Court on the earlier occasion and resulted in the pronouncement of an order dated 27th August 1991, giving only the conclusions and the final judgment on 28th Aug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1989Delhi632; 1989RLR115
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This criminal revision is directed against judgment dated October 4, 1985, of Shri V. S. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by which he had allowed the criminal revision filed by respondents-Joginder Lal and Smt. Taro Devi and had quashed the proceeding initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for Short 'Cr. P.C.') and also the order by which the shop in question had been attached under Section 146 Criminal Procedure Code . (2) Facts leading to the filing of the present petition, in brier, are that the petitioner's father Atam Parkash was allottee of Shop No. 277, Old Lajpat Rai Market. Delhi mid was given possession of the same by the Rehabilitation Department on January 31, 1960. Atam Parkash had entered into a partnership with his son-in-law Pritam Dass on March 26, 1968 and a partnership business in the electronics and allied goods was carried on in the said shop. The said partnership was stated to be at will and the. name of the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(103)DRJ349
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') challenges an order dated 19th April 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), Delhi dismissing an application filed by the Petitioner, who is an accused facing trial in FIR No. 42 of 2006 under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 ('OSA') and 409/201/120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') registered at Police Station Special Cell, for the supply of certain documents relied upon by the Respondent State. 2. A significant question of law that arises in this matter concerning the right of an accused facing trial under the OSA to be provided with the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution which are in digital form in pen drives and hard discs. The case of the prosecution is that under Section 14 OSA even documents gathered during investigation can, if they are classified or secret, be withheld from the accused although they are relied ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker311; 1959CriLJ1172
ORDERRaman Nayar, J. 1. These three petitions may be disposed of together since they raise the same question -- in fact two of them are from the same case.2. The petitioners are some of the accused persons in C. C. Nos. 1 and 2 on the file of Shri T. R. Balakrishna Iyer, one of the two special fudges appointed under Section 6 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, XLVI of 1952 for the whole State of Kerala and specified under Section 7 (2) of the Act as the judge to try these cases. (Crl. R. P. No. 44 is by accused 1 and 2 and Crl. R. P. No. 65 by the 3rd accused in C. C. No. 1; and Crl. R. P. No. 45 is by accused 1 to 3 in C. C. No. 2). 'Objection was taken to the trial on the score of want of territorial jurisdiction, but by two separate orders, dated 18-1-1958, the learned special judge overruled the objection and proceeded to frame charges under Section 251-A(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners seek to set aside those orders and to quash the charges, the principal gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(3)Raj1380; 2004(2)WLC769
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. On the allegations of committing theft and illegally exporting the monuments and statues from various temples and other protected placed of archaeological importance, Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar Jaipur City arrested petitioner in criminal case bearing FIR No. 146/2003 under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414, 401, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and 3/25(1), 5, 14/25(2) of the Antiquities & Art Treasures Act 1972 (for short 'AAT Act') and submitted charge sheet in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) cum Judicial Magistrate No. 21, Jaipur City. The petitioner by moving application under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'CrPC') read with Section 26 AAT Act raised objections as to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance of offence under AAT Act. It was interalia stated in the application that in view of Section 26 of AAT Act, only an officer authorised by the Central Govt. could institute the complaint and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom76; (1951)53BOMLR827; ILR1952Bom189
FACTS1. One Raja Dhanraj Girji (complainant) was the sole proprietor of a mill called Dhanraj Mills till 1935, in which year he converted the mills Into a limited company. He was the managing agent and chairman of the board of directors till 1937. In that year he transferred the managing agency of the limited company to Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia (accused No. 1) who remained in charge of the managing agency till 1943. In 1943 accused No. 1 formed two private limited companies, viz. Ramgopal Ganpatrai & Sons, Ltd., and Ramrikhdas Balkisan & Sons, Ltd., referred to hereinafter as R. G. & Sons, Ltd., and R. B. & Sons, Ltd. R. G. & Sons, Ltd., was given the managing agency of the mills and R. B. & Sons, Ltd., was given the selling agency of the mills. The complainant was given 0-6-0 share in these two companies of R. G. & Sons, Ltd., and R. B. & Sons, Ltd., and the rest of the shares were mainly held by accused No. 1 and the members of his family. Till 1946 the complainant remained a chairman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1986(1)BomCR117; (1987)62CTR(Bom)177; [1987]165ITR245(Bom); 1986MhLJ292
Puranik, J.1. This revision by the accused is directed against the order passed on November 8, 1984, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class 6th Court, Nagpur, in Criminal Case No. 839 of 1982.2. The facts leading to the present revision are as under. The non-applicant No. 1 the Income-tax Officer, filed Criminal Case No. 839 of 1982 against the present applicants for an offence punishable under section 277 of the Income-tax Act 1961. After registration of the complaint, process was issued to the accused and the case was adjourned from time to time. On February 2, 1984, neither the complainant nor his pleader was present and the trial court passed the following order :'Complainant is absent though repeatedly called out till 1.45 p.m. The council is also absent though repeatedly called out till 1.45 p.m. Accused No. 2 with his counsel Accused No. 3 had filed an application for exemption and it is allowed as no say is given. Case is dismissed.'3. After the dismissal of the complaint case...
Tag this Judgment!