Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :30th November, 2017 Date of decision :12th June, 2018 CRL.M.C. 5247/2015 SUDHIR SEHGAL STATE ........ Petitioner Through Mr. APS Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate. versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Maninder Jeet Singh, Advocate for Intervenor. SI Navee, PS Subzi Mandi. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J.1. Vide the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 14.09.2015 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision No.02/2014 whereby the order dated 16.12.2013 of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the Criminal Complaint No.31was upheld whereby a prima facie case was held to be made out against the CRL.M.C. 5247/2015 Page 1 of 33 petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE23D DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020 PRESENT THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1459/2019 BETWEEN: GOVINDARAJU @ KUTTI S/O BALA, AGED ABOUT22YEARS, R/AT NEAR MARIYAMMA TEMPLE, 3RD CROSS, SATHYANAGAR, MARUTHISEVANAGAR, POST, BANGALORE-560033. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI RAMACHANDRA R NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANASWADI POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. RESPONDENT (BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP) 2 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION3742) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED1403.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN S.C. No.527/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMEN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. Pursuant to a departmental enquiry, Satish Kumar, a constable in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been inflicted punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service temporarily for a period of one year entailing reduction in his pay from Rs. 4560/- p.m. to Rs. 4475/- p.m. The enquiry officer after recording the statements of HC Suraj Singh (PW-1), W/HC Adesh Kumari (PW-2), ASI Harpal singh (PW-3), SI Jasvinder Singh (PW-4), Krishan Singh (PW-5), Const. Syambir Singh (PW-6) and Inspr. Ishwar Singh (PW-7), framed the following charge against the applicant: You Const. Satish Kumar No. 2149/SD is hereby charged that while you were posted in P.S. Hauz Khas, on 16/07/99 at about 2.35 A.M. you const. Satish Kumar illegally trespassed in the flat No. F-4 Police Colony, P.S. Hauz Khas of Inspector Ishwar Singh while you were under the influence of liquor and was wearing only underwear. Shri Krishan Singh brother of Inspector Ishwar Singh was sleeping in the room who awakened and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : 1956CriLJ249
1. This is an application in revision on behalf of Ukakhasia against the order of the Senior Extra Assistant Commissioner, Imphal dated 23-12-1954 by which it has been held that the case under Section 161/116, I.P.C. started against the petitioner by the Jiribam Police on the complaint of the opposite party No. 3 Shri Naba kumar Singh, has been held to be triable by the senior E, A. C, and not by a Special Judge as provided by Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Act XLVI of 1952).2. It appears from the complaint dated 15-3-1954 that according to the prosecution the petitioner went to the quarters of the opposite party No. 3 at about 9 A.M. on 15-3-1954 and told him that he had filed a petition in the court of She opposite party No. 8 a week back for getting settlement at Latingkhal Makha. The opposite party No. 3 told the petitioner that the petition might be lying with the Amin and an enquiry might be made in the office, but the petitioner refused to leave the room and offere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR214; 1965MhLJ414
Kotval, J.1. Pursuant to the order passed by a Division Bench on October 28, 1964, we have heard the Advocate General amicus curiae on the question of competency and the jurisdiction of this Court to issue a rule or writ in the instant ease. This matter was originally presented to this Court as an appeal but it appear a that at the said hearing before Mody and Gokhale JJ., the memorandum of appeal was amended, and the petitioner now seeks to invoke our constitutional powers under Article 226. Though this is a matter which is merely placed before us for admission, it is necessary to pass a full order and indicate our reasons because it involves an important point and counsel were heard at length.2. The plaint in pending suit No. 319 of 1960 was presented on the Original-Side of this Court some time in 1960. In that suit, Krishnaraj M.D. Thac-kersey has claimed damages of Rs. 3,00,000 for publication of an alleged malicious libel in the weekly journal 'Blitz' from its editor and publishe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 31(1987)DLT189
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The petitioner, S. Mohinder Singh Saluja is the owner/landlord of the property no. 6/6 W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. M/s Vanson Shoes, a registered partnership firm, to start with, was the tenant of the part of the ground floor of the said premises but in the year 1971, they became the tenant of the whole of the ground floor, including the mezzanine floor at a consolidated rent of Rs 435.00 per mensem Subsequently the rent was increased to Rs. 515.00 including the water charges. The rent has since been paid to the landlord till the tiling of the present complaint u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) The case set up by the tenant in brief is that at the time of the creation of the tenancy, it was agreed between the parties that the respondent landlord will carry out the white wash and minor repairs of the tenancy premises. In spite of the repealed requests and reminders, the landlord failed to get the premises in good shape as per the terms of the rent note....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1971]28STC687(Ker)
ORDERE.K. Moidu, J.1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 8th May, 1970, by the District Magistrate (Judicial), Ernakulam.2. On the application of the first respondent, Sales Tax Officer, the trial Magistrate issued a distraint warrant against the revision petitioner under Section 23(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, which read as follows:--(2) Any tax assessed or any other amount due under this Act from a dealer or other person may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be recovered-- (a) as if it were an arrear of land revenue;(b) on application to any Magistrate, by such Magistrate, as if it were a fine imposed by him : Provided that no proceedings for such recovery shall be taken or continued as long as such dealer or other person has, in regard to the payment of such tax or other amount, as the case may be, complied with an order by any of the authorities to whom he has appealed or applied for revision, under the provisions of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1973]91ITR144(Ker)
ORDERBhaskaran, J.1. These two matters arise out of one and the same case. The criminal revision petition is by the Income-tax Officer (Assessment) IV, Calicut, and the criminal miscellaneous petition is by the 1st respondent in the said criminal revision petition. The criminal revision is stated to be under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Crl. M. P. is under sections 561A and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the purpose of discussion, I am referring to parties as arrayed in the criminal revision petition.2. The facts leading to these proceedings in this court may briefly be stated as follows : At about 1 a.m. on December 24, 1970, the police on patrol duty in certain part of Calicut saw the 2nd respondent walking along the road with a bag. The police on suspicion stopped and searched him, and found that the bag with him contained Indian currency notes of 100 rupee denomination which in the aggregate came to Rs. 1,00,000. He was arrested under s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1976CriLJ315
Sudhamay Basu, J.1. This is a petition from jail by one Abul Azad who was sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I. P, C. on the 10th of January 1968. It is for setting off the period of detention undergone by him during investigation and trial in accordance with the Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973,2. The Supreme Court in the case of B. P, Andre v. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bihar, New Delhi reported in : 1975CriLJ182 held that where the accused has been convicted and is still serving his sentence, at the date when the new Code of Criminal Procedure came into force, Section 428 could apply and the connected person would be entitled to claim set off in terms thereof. In another decision, Hardev Singh v. The State of Punjab reported in : 1975CriLJ243 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and at the same time held that the appellant was entitled to get a set off or adjustment under Section 428 Criminal P.C. of the period if any, during which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : 1956CriLJ249
ORDERBrij Narain, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of Ukakhasia against the order of the Senior Extra Assistant Commissioner, Imphal dated 23-12-1954 by which it has been held that the case under Section 161/116, I.P.C. started against the petitioner by the Jiribam Police on the complaint of the opposite party No. 3 Shri Naba kumar Singh, has been held to be triable by the senior E, A. C, and not by a Special Judge as provided by Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Act XLVI of 1952).2. It appears from the complaint dated 15-3-1954 that according to the prosecution the petitioner went to the quarters of the opposite party No. 3 at about 9 A.M. on 15-3-1954 and told him that he had filed a petition in the court of She opposite party No. 8 a week back for getting settlement at Latingkhal Makha. The opposite party No. 3 told the petitioner that the petition might be lying with the Amin and an enquiry might be made in the office, but the petitioner refused to leave...
Tag this Judgment!