Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR1001
SHAH, J.(1) After stating the facts his Lordship proceeded)- It is urded that the second head of the charge Infringed the express provision contained in the proviso to section 222(2) of the code of criminal Procedure, and on that account hte trial held be force the Court of sessionwas illegal.Originally the harge related to a period between 6th March 1949 and 31st March 1951. It appears that the attention of the learned trail Judgewas invited on 2nd June 1958 to the fact that afetr June 1950 no advacen was made to the fourth accused or to his firm and, therefore,the charge sould have been restricted to a period between 6th March 1949 and 30th June 1950. The learned Juge then amended the charge by striking out the figure'30-6-1050' in the second head 0of the chargeand procedded with the trial. It appears that by that time a large number of witnesses were examined for the prosecution.,but no objection was raised on behalf of the accused to the amendment of the charge because it was in su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982(1)BomCR117
R.S. Bhonsale, J.1. Even though this petition by the original accused was filed for quashing of the complaint and for setting aside the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri and also for setting aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 427 of 1979, subsequent events have confined the scope of this petition to a limited points i.e. as to whether the unwarned complaint by the complainant is fatal to the prosecution i.e. whether non-examination of the complainant on oath........merely amounts irregularity under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or whether it amounts to illegality and goes to the root of the matter. In order to appreciate the question which has arisen during the course of lengthy arguments on both sided, it may be convenient to briefly refer to the averments in the complaint as well as prosecution case presented in this criminal application in this Court.2. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961AP448
ORDERAnantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the Order d/- 5-2-1960 passed by die Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Avanigadda in Cri. M. P. No. 14 of 1960 in p. R. C. No. 8 of 1953 on his file.2. The relevant facts of the case are briefly as follows;3. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies filed a complaint dated 20-6-1955 against Vadlamudi Kutumba Rao, the petitioner herein, to the effect that the latter, as the President of a Co-operative Society, had committed an offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 409 I. p. C. The Sub Inspector of Police, Pamarru registered a crime under Section 409 I. P. C.After investigation, he filed a charge-sheet against eighteen accused under Sections 120B, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 193 I. P- C. Of these accused, Vadlamudi Kuntumba Rao is A-1 and was charged as the ex-President of the Co-operative Marketing Society, Pedamukthevi and A-2 to A-5 were charged as ex-Directors of the same society. The learned Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1968All415; 1968CriLJ1640
Uniyal, J. 1. One Vishwanath filed a complaint against Harnam Singh accused under Section 448 I. P. C. alleging that the accused had committed criminal trespass over a portion of an abadi plot belonging to him with intent to intimidate insult or annoy him. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 447 I. P. C and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month the court held that the complainant was entitled to be restored to possession and accordingly ordered delivery of possession of the property to him under Section 522 Cr. P. C.2. Harnam Singh accused filed an appeal against his conviction and the learned Civil & Sessions Judge set aside the conviction holding that the possession of the accused was not wrongful and that he has been in continuous and peaceful possession of the property from before. In the result the appellate court ordered redelivery of possession of the property to the accused under Sections 522/423 Cr. P. C.3. The complainant the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999CriLJ1865
J.C. Mishra, J.1. These references have been made in the above cases to resolve the conflicting decisions of the Single Benches on the controversy, whether a person, who was not an accused in a case, can be summoned under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure on the strength of uncross-examined evidence of a witness/witnesses and without giving opportunity of cross-examination to the accused. The question formulated in the reference made by Hon'ble S. K. Phaujdar, J. in Criminal Misc. application No. 1823 of 1995 is incorporated below :Whether the term 'evidence' as used in Section 319 Cr.P.C. could only mean an evidence complete by cross-examination or if the court can take action under this section even on the statement made in examination-in-chief of one or other witnesses. 2. Similar reference was made by Hon'ble C, A. Rahim, J. in Criminal Revision No. 447 of 1997.The applicants Ram Gopal and Gajadhar in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 1995 were summoned by 1st Addition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ887
Chaturvedi, J.1. This reference to the Full Bench arises from a Government appeal filed under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code against an order of the Sessions Judge, Dhar, acquitting the respondents of the charges under Sections 304, 392 and 302, Indian Penal Code. The respondents were convicted under Section 304, part 2 and an appeal filed by them against their conviction was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 5.12.1949. Rege J. delivering the judgment of the Division Bench concluded his judgment in para 11 in the following words:I would, therefore, maintain the conviction and dismiss the appeal. The learned Government Advocate made a strong plea for alteration of the conviction to one under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The Government has not filed an appeal from the acquittal under Section 302 although such an appeal would be within time, and in the circumstances, I would not think of altering the conviction though I agree, this Court has the power in a prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2392; 2008(2)ALD(Cri)381; 2008(2)ALT(Cri)350; 2008CriLJ3065; (2008)3GLR2468(SC); 2008(2)KLT907(SC); RLW2008(2)SC1664; 2008(7)SCALE519; (2008)6SCC789; 2008AIRSCW3962(2008)3SCC(Cri)151; 2008(3)AICLR480; 2008(4)Supreme308; 2008(3)KCCRSN188
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fall for our consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 12.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 358 of 2005 dismissing the Criminal Revision filed by the appellant herein.3. Son of the appellant Hanif Ahmed Patel was married to the complainant - respondent on 22.4.2002. Appellant indisputably is a citizen of Mauritius. Her son and daughter-in-law at all material times were residing at Kuwait.A Complaint Petition, however, was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari by the said respondent alleging physical and mental torture by her husband (the first accused). Allegations primarily against the appellant therein were that the first accused used to consult her and she used to instigate him.As the couple was residing at Kuwait, indisputably the entire cau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1923)44MLJ450
Oldfield, J.1. This appeal is by the 3rd accused in S.C. No. 3 of 1922 on the file of the Special 1st Class Magistrate, Tirur against his conviction and sentence therein. The Public Prosecutor opposes it on the ground that Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1922 against that conviction and sentence has already been dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court. The facts are that Criminal Appeal No. 395 was presented by the accused under Section 420, Criminal Procedure Code through the officer in charge of the Jail, where he is, on 6th May, 1922 and was dismissed under Section 421, as out of time, by Krishnan, J. sitting as Vacation Judge, on 2nd June, 1922. The accused) presumably in ignorance of this, presented the present appeal on the 17th July, 1922 on the re-opening of the Court through counsel. It is not disputed that, unless the decision of 2nd June, 1922 can on some ground be disregarded, we are debarred from disposing of the present appeal on the merits.2. We have been asked first to me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1967Cal178,1967CriLJ455
Mukharji, J.1. This is a Rule in contempt. Sri. A.K. Sarkar, Editor, Anandabazar Patrika and Sri Suresh Chandra Bhattacharya, Printer and Publisher, Anandabazar Patrika are the petitioners who obtained this Rule to commit to prison these four persons. (1) Kadha Kanta Pandey, (2) Monoranjan Bhowmick, (3) Ratan Maheswari and (4) S.C. Chowdhuri. The first three opposite parties are representation theSoulmari Ashram and Sri S.N. Choudhuri, the fourth opposite party is their Solicitor on record.2. The main and the only ground for contempt is stated to be a letter written by the Solicitor opposite party S.N. Chaudhari to the petitioner dated 16th August. 1965 in which the Solicitor under instructions from the first three opposite parties and members of the Soulmari Ashram, complained of an item of news made, printed and published by the said Paper which was alleged to be defamatory. The letter of the Solicitor in the penultimate paragraph stated.'If you fail or neglect to furnish the informa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. What is sought for in this Writ Petition is a mandamus, forbearing respondents 4 and 5 from conducting any enquiry against the petitioner based upon the decision said to have been taken on 28.08.2009 by respondents 1 to 3.2. According to the petitioner, he was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment as an IPS Officer and was allotted to Tamil Nadu Cadre; he is holding the position of Inspector General of Police; during February,2009, he was working as Additional Commissioner of Police, (Law and Order), Chennai City; on the orders of Mr.Radhakrishnan, the then Commissioner of Police, he came to High Court on the forenoon of 19.02.2009 to oversee the security arrangements in the High Court apropos the appearance of Dr.Subramaniam Swamy before the High Court; at about 14.45 hrs., the then Commissioner of Police called him over phone and directed him to go to B2 Esplanade Police Station and monitor the surrender of advocates connected in Crime No.13/09 on the fil...
Tag this Judgment!