Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1985(1)BomCR479; [1985]57CompCas115(Bom); 1984MhLJ952
Rege, J.1. These two matters arising out of the same proceeding and against the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated April 23, 1984, can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. Criminal Writ Petition No. 259 of 1984 under article 227 of the Constitution and also under s. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is by the complainant company challenging the validity of the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge dated April 23, 1984, acquitting respondent No. 1, the accused, of the charge under s. 630 of the Companies Act by reversing in appeal the judgment and order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated November 30, 1983, convicting the accused of the said offence under s. 630 of the Companies Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 500 an in default one month's simple imprisonment.3. Criminal Application No. 806 of 1984 is filed for seeking leave of this court to file an appeal against the said order of acquittal of the accused by the said Sessions Judge. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)1BOMLR349; 2000CriLJ4442; 2000(4)MhLj674
ORDERB. B. Vagyani. J.1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri Shirish Gupte, with Shri B. R. Warma, learned Advocate, for the petitioners and learned A. P. P. Shri V. D. Sapkal for the respondent State in Criminal Writ Petition No. 361/1998. 2. Heard learned Advocate Shri V.D. Hon for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. Shri S. K. Tambe for the respondent State in Criminal Application No. 2397/1998. 3. The law points involved in Criminal Writ Petition No. 361/1998 and Criminal Application No. 2397/1998 are identical and, therefore, both the petitions are disposed of by common order. 4. The facts giving rise to the Criminal Writ Petition No. 361/1998 are as under : The petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are the Directors of M/s Gufic Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the said company'). The said company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The office of the said company is situated at Nehru Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400 007. The registered office of the said company is in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982(2)BomCR183
S.W. Puranik, J.1. Both these revisions are directed against the same judgment arising out of Criminal Revision Application No. 15/83 decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 11-7-1980. Hence both these applications are disposed of by common order.2. These applications relate to maintenance proceedings between husband and wife. The Criminal Revision Application No. 276/80 is preferred by Smt. Kamlabai w/o Laxmanrao Sarode, the alleged wife of non-applicant Laxmanrao while Criminal Application No. 452/80 under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is preferred by the husband Laxmanrao against his alleged wife Kamlabai and daughter Ku. Geeta. Initially Smt. Kamlabai along with her minor daughter Geeta had preferred proceedings under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code against Laxmanrao claiming maintenance from him on the ground that she was the legally married wife of Laxmanrao; that Geeta is the daughter born out of the said wedlock and that Kamlabai being unable to maintain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1983(2)BomCR476
M.P. Kanade, J.1. By this Criminal Revision Application the order passed by the learned Joint C.J. & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule dated April 30, 1982 enhancing the maintenance amount to the respondent Rekha Prakash Kulkarni, is challenged.2. Few facts leading to this revision application are :That the petitioner and the respondent got married on December 24, 1974. It appears that for some time they could smoothly go on with their marital relations. There was registered agreement of divorce between them, on September 20, 1978. Releasing the futility of the said agreement, the respondent Rekha filed and application for restitution of conjugal rights in Suit No. H.M.P. No. 7 of 1980. That application was dismissed on September 30, 1980. In the said application it was found by the learned Assistant Judge, that the respondent was much more responsible for the strained relations between the husband and wife. While considering the maintenance or alimony, as the case may be, the le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]91CompCas556(Kar); 1997CriLJ4187; 1997(3)KarLJ422
A.M. Farooq, J.1. This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and it is directed against the order dated September 11, 1996, in C.C. No. 1254 of 1995 on the file of the learned Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings and discharging him. The petitioner is shown as the accused in the criminal case before the trial court and the respondent is the complainant before the trial court. 3. A complaint has been filed against the petitioner alleging an offence under section 630 of the Companies Act. The complaint has been lodged on the ground that the petitioner was one of the directors of the company and he was granted the premises which is the subject-matter of the proceedings during his tenure as a director of the company and in spite of his term being over, the petitioner has not vacated the premises in question, hence, the complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act. Under the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR1460
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Government Order dated 12-11-1984 bearing No. HD 87 PRR 84, produced as Annexure-E. He has also sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to release him prematurely.2. 1) The petitioner along with four other accused was convicted on 18-8-1978 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 307 read with Section 149; and Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1977 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months, one year, 5 years and one year respectively on each of the aforesaid counts. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. 2) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of convictions and sentences, the petitioner al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1970All185; 1970CriLJ310
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court to the effect that the suit to be reheard and decided in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by the lower appellate Court.2. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was filed by Vishwanath Banerji, the plaintiff-respondent, in the Court of the Munsif of Varanasi for a declaration that an order dated 19-7-1961 passed by Sri H. K. Sharma, Magistrate First Class, Deoghar District Santhal Parganas Bihar in Criminal Case No. 376 of 1961, misc., case No. 125 of 1961, Smt. Gauri Banerji v. Vishwanath Banerji, under Section 488, Criminal P.C., was illegal, ultra vires, void, ineffective and unenforceable and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking any steps to realise by distress warrants or otherwise any sum of money from the plaintiff in pursuance of the said order. Admittedly Vishwanath Banerji and Smt. Gauri Banerji are husband an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1384
ORDERA. M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. This revision against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge, Gangtok, confirming the judgment passed by the District Magistrate, South Sikkim. whereby the latter has convicted the petitioner under Sections 279/337, Indian penal Code and has sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-and in defualt to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, involves only one question, very seriously pressed by Mr. B.C. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The question is whether a trial by a Court of a case which has been transferred thereto from another Court by an order of transfer passed by a Sessions Judge under Section 528(1-C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is vitiated, if the order of transfer, was passed without 'an applications made to him in this behalf' as required by the provisions of Section 528(1-C)2. The case was originally instituted in the Court of the District Magistrate. South Sikkim, who after the receipt of the charge-sheet,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC128; 1960CriLJ171; [1960]1SCR935
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court at Patna, raises ashort question about the construction of Art. 9 in Sch. I of Court Fees Act VIIof 1870 (hereinafter called the Act). A proceeding was instituted against theappellant, Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee, under s. 107 of the Code of CriminalProcedure in the Court of the Magistrate of First Class at Bhagalpur; in thisproceeding the learned magistrate directed the appellant to execute a bond ofRs. 5,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to keep the peace for aperiod of one year. The appellant challenged this order by his appeal beforethe Additional Session Judge at Bhagalpur. The appellate judge agreed with thedecision of the learned magistrate and the appeal preferred by the appellantwas dismissed. The appellant then took this matter before the High Court atPatna by his Criminal Revision Application No. 924 of 1957. It appears that thecertified copies of the orders passed by the two courts below in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1988)90BOMLR208; JT1988(2)SC280; 1988(1)SCALE909; (1988)3SCC144; [1988]3SCR868
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 305,306 & 307 of 1988.From the Judgment and Order dated 2nd/3rd July, 1986 of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal application No. 1127, 527 and 866 of 1985.S.B. Bhasme, M.C. Bhandare, Dilip Pillai, P.K. Pillai, T. Sridharan and Amit Desai for the appellants. V.M. Tarkunde, R.K. Garg, M.S. Rao, Y.R. Naik, Rajadyaka, S.B. Jaisingha, Ms. R. Jethmalani, C. Ramesh and Ashok Sharma for the Respondents.V.S. Desai, G.B. Sathe, A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the State of Maharashtra.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. Special Leave granted in each of the three cases.A common questions arising for consideration in these appeals is as to the justifiability of the appointment by the State of Special Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors under sections 24 and 25 respectively of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the cost of the private complainants.In Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) ...
Tag this Judgment!