Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)MhLj148
1. By this revision, the State, which is complainant in Regular Criminal Case No. 97/96, State v. Rajiv Deshmukh and Ors. on the file of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Chalisgaon, challenges legality,propriety and correctness of the order passed by learned Magistrate below Exhibit 190 on 5-9-2000.By the impugned order, it is held that witness Balasaheb @ Ramesh Laxman Deshmukh respondent is entitled to protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and the prosecution is, therefore, directed not to examine him as a witness in the said case.2. The incident in question took place on 26-4-1996 between 00-30 to 01-30 hours i.e. after just past midnight, on the night between 25th and 26th April, 1996. On Chalisgaon Dhule Road, there is a hotel run in the name and style 'Hotel Rani Park'. Complainant Charudatta Nanabhau Pawar was sitting in the northern part of the campus of said hotel. It is the prosecution story that PW Balasaheb @ Ramesh Laxman Deshmukh had invited him th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)2BOMLR95; 2003(1)MhLj952
J.A. Patil, J.1. The original applicants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10 have filed this Revision Application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code and challenged the order dated 28-4-1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, in Criminal Revision Application No. 17 of 1989, setting aside the order dated 7-2-1989 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (for short S.D.M.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 86 of 1987. The relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of this revision application may be stated, in brief, as under :The original non-applicant M/s Ramchand Bhagirath is a proprietary concern of Bhagirath Ramchand Agrawal (since deceased). He was a commission agent in a Kirana goods and was also a wholesale dealer in dry chillies. In Ansari Ward of Gondia city, he had a godown in a double storeyed building known as Vishnu Kunj where he used to store large quantity of chillies. The applicants are residents of Ansari Ward, which is mainly residentia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(3)BomCR287; 2007(3)MhLj223
S.R. Sathe, J.1. Heard both the learned advocates at length as it was agreed to decide the matter finally at admission stage.2. The Appellant-original Plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 86/1985 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Solapur whereby the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barshi dismissing the plaintiffs suit for declaration and partition was confirmed and appeal was dismissed. For the sake of convenience hereafter parties shall be referred to as 'Plaintiff' and 'Defendants'.3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:Plaintiff Gangubai Bhagwan Kolhe is the wife of Original Defendant No. 1 (He died during the pendency of the suit on 13-5-1992). The Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 are the daughters of Plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are purchasers of the suit property. 4. According to Plaintiff, the suit properties which are as agricultural l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Mys125; 1966CriLJ555; (1965)2MysLJ193
ORDER(1) The question for decision in this revision petition is, whether a Sessions Judge acts illegally if he accepts the express acquiescence of the accused appellant in the Order of conviction appealed against, while disposing of an appeal under S. 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? (2) The circumstances under which the contention has been raised are not in dispute. The petitioner Smt. Parvathama Hiremath is the Publisher, Printer and Editor of a Kannada Weekly newspaper by name 'Veeramathe'. In the issue dated 26-1-1959 she published an article against the respondent who, according to the evidence, is a reputed dealer in watcher and clocks in the City of Bangalore. The article contained serious imputations against the business-morale and integrity of the respondent. It alleged that he had been evading taxes and It alleged that he had been evading taxes and involved in fifteen cases pending against him. It concluded with an announcement that 'Veeramathe' had appointed her own C....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ4526; II(1999)DMC422; ILR1999KAR1676; 1998(5)KarLJ357
ORDER1. The only question that arises in this revision petition under Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code is as to whether Section 240, Criminal Procedure Code permits an accused to answer the charge through his Counsel.2. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, and after hearing the prosecution and the accused, has formed an opinion that, there is a ground presuming that the accused in the case, including the present two respondents, have committed offences punishable under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. What remains is, framing of the charge and to read it over and to explain to the accused and to ask the accused whether they plead guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as required by Section 240, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1958All481; 1958CriLJ827
A.N. Mulla, J. 1. Appellant Laurie S. Jacobs was tried under Section 161, I. P. Code and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947). The trial Court convicted him under Section 161, I. P. Code and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months. It passed no orders in respect of the offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Against this order of conviction the appellant has come up in appeal. 2. The prosecution story is that the appellant was employed as shed-man in the Loco Shed, Jhansi in the year 1950. A temporary gang of labourers was recruited in October, 1950 to do some emergent work. The Divisional Superintendent had written to Sri R.A. Hassett (D.W. 2), who was the Running-shed Foreman at Jhansi at that time to recruit this gang. Sri Hassett asked the appellant to carry out the orders of the Divisional Superintendent and engage the casual labour in c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963MP162; 1963CriLJ600
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J.1. This is an application by the Nawab of Jaora a ruling prince, who is the de facto complainant in a criminal case before the Magistrate, Jaora, (against one Sagarmal Mahajan) actually filed by his mukhtar-am or agent. The Nawab wanted to examine himself as a witness which is in his own interest. However, he simultaneously insisted that he was a 'privileged person' exempt as of right from personal attendance as a witness in a criminal Court, and should be examined on commission in the manner provided in Section 503 Criminal Procedure Code at his own residence. The learned Magistrate having heard both the parties, felt that on grounds of reasonableness and justice, there was no case for action under Section 503 Criminal Procedure Code; if the Nawab wanted to examine himself as a witness in support of his own complaint, he should come to the Court like any other witness. On the legal aspect of the matter the Magistrate felt that there was nothing in the law, that i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ661
ORDER1. Heard counsel. The matter is hotly contested.2. Indeed, in pre-lunch session, Shri M. C. Jain, counsel prayed that connected matter, namely, M.P. No. 2622 of 1990, be also listed for hearing and disposal analogously. On referring to order passed in this matter on 26-10-1990, we found his prayer reasonable and accordingly directed records of that matter also to be brought from Registry and that is before us.3. This order shall govern disposal accordingly of M.P. Nos. 2571 and 2622, both of 1990. At this stage, we may make it clear that the intervener is a body of persons who claim to be member of Jain community. They submit that respondent No. 6, Shri Gopal Digambar Jain Siddhant Mahavidyalaya, Morena, namely, the petitioner in M.P. No. 2571 of 1980, is managing an institution of Jain Community and they were, therefore, necessary party to be heard in the matter. We found their prayer reasonable and accordingly, their intervention is allowed.4. During the course of the arguments,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : II(1998)DMC655
K.S. Kumaran, J.1. Petitioners No. (1) Baljit Kaur, (2) Mohinder Kaur, and (3) Sukhdev Singh have approached this Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the FIR No. 200 dated 28.7.1996 under Sections 406/494/495/496/498-A, Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Garhi, and all other consequential proceedings. 2. 2nd respondent-Beant Singh lodged a complaint against Baljinder Singh, Baljeet Kaur, Mohinder Kaur (son, daughter and wife respectively of Sukhdev Singh, the third petitioner herein) Sukhdev Singh and the alleged second wife of Baljinder Singh, whose name the compalainant does not know, which formed the basis for the above said FIR. The material allegations found in the complaint are as follows:The complainant's daughter Amarjit Kaur @ Rani was married to Baljinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh (3rd petitioner herein) on 4.5.1993. At the time of Sagai and marriage certain articles (detailed in the complaint) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC771; (1969)1SCC161
Shah, J. 1. K. Meerayya, K. Venkatanarayana--respondents in this appeal and two others were charged before the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Avanigadda, for offences under Section 323 and 324, I.P. Code, for voluntarily causing injuries to Seetharamayya and Veeraraghavayya on June 22, 1964. The Trial Magistrate convicted Meerayya and Venkatanarayana--the first under the offence under Section 324 and the second for the offence under Section 323, I.P. Code. In appeal to the Court of Session, Krishna Division at Machilipatnam, the order was confirmed. The High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the order of conviction and sentence. The State of Andhra Pradesh had appealed to this court with special leave. 2. The case raises a question of some importance in the administration of justice. The findings recorded by the Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Judge were that the respondents had committed assault upon Seetharamayya and Veeraraghavayya and t...
Tag this Judgment!