Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1418; 1966CriLJ1071
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This is a petition under s. 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the transfer of a criminal case (No. 2 of 1964 - State v. Gurcharan Dass Chadha I.P.S.) which is pending in the Court or the Special Judge, Bharatpur, Rajasthan to another criminal court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to a High Court other than the High Court of Rajasthan. The petitioner is the accused in that case and he is being tried under Sections 120B/161, Indian Penal Code and s. 5(1)(a)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The petitioner is a member of an All India Service and his prosecution has been sanctioned by the Government of India. In December, 1962, he was serving as Superintendent of Police and was selected to be Commandant of 8th Battallion of Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. He avers that he took over as Commandant on January 7, 1963 but was placed under suspension the same day and a case was registered on January 12, 1963 which has resulted in the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1440; 1986CriLJ1074; 1986(3)Crimes1(SC); 1987(3)KarLJ112; 1986MPLJ438(SC); 1986(1)SCALE1128; (1986)2SCC709; [1986]2SCR771; 1986(1)LC654(SC)
V. Khalid, J.1. This Criminal appeal by special leave, involves the question : Whether a Sub-ordinate Criminal Court has any inherent jurisdiction outside the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code Incidentally, the scope of Article 141 of the Constitution also comes up for consideration. 2. The facts of the case can be stated first. The appellants, two in number, are the accused in a complaint filed by the first respondent in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, New Delhi, disclosing an offence punishable under Section 67 and 72C(l)(a) of the Mines Act, 1952, read with Regulation 106 of the Metallifarous Mines Regulation 1961. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file and issued summons to the accused to appear on 6.1.1972. On 6,1.1972 neither the complainant nor the accused were present and therefore, the Magistrate passed the following order : Accused not present. None present for the complainant also. The complaint is hereby dismissed in default and for wan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1115; [1971]41CompCas474(SC); 1971CriLJ827; (1971)2SCC85; [1971]3SCR859; 1971(III)LC439(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. These appeals are by certificate from the judgment dated 13 August, 1968 of the High Court at Calcutta holding that the memorandum of appeals from an order of acquittal were barred by Article 114 of the Limitation Act, 1963.2. The appeals were directed against orders of acquittal passed by the Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta on 4 April, 1968. The four petitions of appeal were presented in the High Court on 1 July, 1968 by the learned Advocate authorised by the Vakalatnama executed by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, West Bengal described as the appellant in all the petitions.3. The Assistant Registrar pf Companies, West Bengal filed petitions of complaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta alleging that the certain officers/directors of the Standard Paint Works (P) Ltd. of 44 Beadon Row, Calcutta mentioned therein were guilty of offence for non-compliance with provisions contained in the Companies Act, 1956 by reason of default in filing Annual Return ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2245; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)1; 1999CriLJ3513; 1999(3)Crimes64(SC); JT1999(3)SC638; 1999(3)SCALE663; (1999)5SCC209; [1999]3SCR594; 1999(2)LC1021(SC)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The question involved in this appeal is whether the High Court has jurisdiction to impose 'exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000' to be paid by each of the appellants while rejecting a frivolous or vexatious petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the charge framed against the appellants?3. FIR was lodged by Josephine Jaya on 29th September, 1989 stating that her in-laws demanded from her father Rs. 60,000 in cash, 65 sovereigns of gold jewellary for the bride and nine sovereigns or similar jewellary for the groom; that out of Rs. 60,000, Rs. 50,000 were paid; that after the marriage, she was treated cruelly and there were unlawful demands for a colour television and Rs. 50,000 in cash. It is also alleged that at the instigation of in-laws accused Nos. 2 to 6, accused No. 1 (her husband) administered certain medicine with a view to abort her pregnancy. After preliminary investigation, on 18th October, 1989, a charge sheet was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1998]94CompCas363(Guj); (1997)3GLR2343
S.D. Pandit, J.Rule. 1. In these three criminal revision applications, the petitioners before me are one and the same and the respondents are also one and the same. Though these three revision applications arise out of three private complaints bearing Nos. 3835 of 1991, 3498 of 1991, and 3497 of 1991, the question involved in these petitions are one and the same and, therefore, they are heard together. I, therefore, proceed to decide all these revision applications by this common judgment. 2. I have given opportunity to both the sides to argue the applications on the merits fully and I have heard them fully and, therefore, I proceed to dispose of these applications finally by this judgment. 3. Respondent No. 2, Deepak Chimanlal Shah, had lodged the above three private complaints for the commission of the alleged offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In all these three cases the present petitioners who were accused in those three cases, gave an applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)2GLR1481; [1995]212ITR255(Guj)
1. These common orders shall govern the disposal of these three criminal revision applications presenting common questions of law and facts. 2. The questions of law in the background of facts, undisputed and accepted, are : '(1) When the money and/or the value of the valuable articles, found during search operations during a year has been accepted as the deemed income of the assessee for such financial year by the Income-tax Department and also as wealth on the basis of the returns to be filed by the assessee, can there be a charge of a wilful attempt to evade income-tax and also the wealth-tax for the said year (2) Whether the orders of the City Sessions Court in revisional jurisdiction, quashing the magisterial orders discharging the accused and directing the framing of the charges, can be said to be interlocutory orders, not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this court under section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)2GLR1056
K.A. Puj, J.1. Rule. Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned APP and Mr. S.N. Sinha, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 respectively. Since the complaint is of 1991, the matter is heard finally.2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 31.3.2003 at Annexure-A and the order dated 22.4.2004 at Annexure-B passed by the learned JMFC, Veraval and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, respectively and also praying for deletion of the charges framed against the petitioner under Section 379 of the I.P.C. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the complaint being Criminal Case No. 1301/1991 pending before the learned JMFC Veraval. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Officer from the Gujarat Electricity Board (G.E.B.) respondent No. 2 herein had visited the factory premises of the petitioner and alleged the theft of the ener...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(5)WLC653
Madan, J.1. In this criminal misc. petition, others dated 30.3.2000 (Ann. 3) of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magislrate Bhawani Mandi (Jhalawar) confirmed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention of atrocities Act) Jhalawar on 15.9.2000 (Ann. 4) have been challenged with further prayer to quash proceedings pending against petitioners (1) Gupta Chemicals (P) Ltd. & (2) Pushpendra Gupta in Cr. Case No. 149/95.2. In nut shell the circumstances resulting in prosecution of the petitioners are that on 31.7.1992 an Insecticide Inspector Ram Swaroop Sharma holding post of Agriculture Officer. Plant Protection inspected shop of M/s Ramchandra Jai Narain Bhutra Bhawani Mandi and took a sample of Sungor 30% EC, Batch No. SE10 having manufacturing date as January 92 & expiry as June 93. This sample was sent for analysis and as per its report of 20th October 1992 it was not conforming to prescribed standards, thereby a show cause notice was sent on 20.12.92 to the dealer, distributor and manufacturer. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The accused in C.C.No.58/2004 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur seeks quashing of the order dated 31.08.2006 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore remanding back the said calendar case to the Special Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur. 2. According to Mr. S. Baskaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, once the trial court referred the case under section 325 CrPC to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore for imposing severe sentence, again the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot remand back the case to the referral Magistrate. In support of his proposition, Mr. Baskaran cited In re Sundalamada Kudumban [AIR (29) 1942 Madras 281 (2)]. Thus, he would submit that the impugned order dated 31.08.2006 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is required to be quashed. 3. Mrs. MF. Shabana, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that even the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom the case was sent, has to deal with the case in accordance with the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
M.L. Visa, J.1. Heard.Petitioners have filed this application for quashing order dated 30.08.2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in Complaint Case No. 1470C of 2000 under Sections 376, 341, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code by which, after taking cognizance, non- bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners was issued, order dated 17.09.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Purnea in Criminal Revision No. 441 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the revision filed by the petitioners against order dated 30.08.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria was dismissed and also order dated 3.12.2004 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria by which his earlier order dated 30.08.2000 has been reiterated.2. Learned Counsel of petitioners submits that on the basis of complaint petition filed by opposite party No. 2 against the petitioners under Sections 376, 341, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, without examining the witnesses of...
Tag this Judgment!