Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1851; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)258; (2004)3CALLT55(SC); [2004(4)JCR137(SC)]; JT2004(5)SC157; 2004(1)SCALE641; (2004)4SCC129
S.B. Sinha, J.INTRODUCTION:1. Applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing a proceeding for confiscation of forest-produce etc. under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the State of West Bengal is in question in these appeals which arise out of a common judgment and order dated 27.6.1996 passed by the Calcutta High Court.BACKGROUND FACTShortly stated the fact of the matter is that the forest-produce belonging to the State and/or the vehicles carrying the same were seized by the Forest Officer. The report of such seizure was made to the authorized officer.2. Except Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 1997 - State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Sujit Kumar Rana, show cause notices issued by the forest authority purported to be issued under the provision of Section 59-B of the Act, as amended by the State of west Bengal or the seizure of the forest-produce of the vehicle carrying the same, came to be quest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1979WLN(UC)191
M.C. Jain, J.1. The applicant Dhan Raj by the application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, seeks to quash the proceedings under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code (old) initiated by the respondent Smt. Kishni Devi by he; application dated 8.7. 1963 for maintenance of herself and her two children.2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of this application may be briefly stated as under: On presentation of the application Under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code (old) notice was ordered to be issued to the present applicant Dhan Raj On 17 10-1968, the non-applicant Smt. Kishni Devi and her counsel Shri Hulash Mal Chopra were not present so the application was dismissed in default. By that date notice was not served on the present applicant. On the next day i.e. on 18-10-1968 an application for restoration was filed by Shri Hulash Mal Chopra stating that he was under the impression that there is no case mentioned in his diary of 17. 10 68 so he could not present himse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All533
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. The question referred to us is whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Letters Patent (especially by Section 22) to transfer from the court of one Magistrate to the court of another Magistrate a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is a conflict of authority on the point. In In re Pandurang Govimd Pujari (1900) I.L.R., 25 Bom., 179 it was held that the High Court had no power under Section 526 of the Code to transfer a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code from one court to another. The reason given is that such a proceeding is not a 'criminal case' within the meaning of Section 526, that a criminal case means a case arising out of and dealing with some crime already committed and does not include proceedings taken for the prevention of a crime. The Madras High Court in Arumuga Tegundan (1902) I.L.R., 26 Mad., 188 dissented from the Bombay case. The lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.84
1. The question referred to is whether the High Court has jurisdiction, under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Letters Patent, especially Section 22, to transfer from the Court of one Magistrate to the Court of another Magistrate a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. There is a conflict of authority on the point. In In re Pandurang Govind Pujari 25 B. 179, it was held that the High Court had no power, under Section 526 of the Code, to transfer a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code from one Court to another. The reason given is that such a proceeding is not a 'criminal cafe' within the meaning of Section 526; that a criminal case means a case arising out of and dealing with some crime already committed and does not include proceedings taken for the prevention of a crime. The Madras High' Court, in In re Arumuga Tegundan 26 M. 188, dissented from the Bombay case. The learned Judges said: 'We have no doubt of our power to transf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1981; 1975()WLN179
Kalyan Dutta, J.1. By his order dated 4-6-1974, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, released Bhanwaru Khan, Mohammad, Alfu, Ganni and Bhanwaru son of Rahaman, non-petitioners on bail upon each of them furnishing a personal bond in the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, together with two sureties for Rs. 5000/-, each. Aggrieved by the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the State of Rajasthan moved the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, for cancellation of bail granted to the non-petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, rejected the application for cancellation of bail by his order dated 17-9-1974. Hence, the State has come up to this Court by way of an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 439 of the new Criminal Procedure Code for a direction that the non-petitioners, who have been released op bail, be arrested and committed to custody.2. I have carefully gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced by Shri G. A. Khan for the State of Rajasthan and Mr. V. S. Dave, learn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1984; 1975()WLN132
ORDERKalyan Dutta, J.1. Khinvdan alias Khiny Singh has applied for bail under Section 439(1) of the new Criminal Procedure Code.2. The Prosecution case against him is that he committed the murder of his wife Kalyan Kanwar alias Nen Kanwar by strangulating her while she was sleeping in a room of his house in the night between 16th and 17th November. 1974. His bail application was rejected by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Desuri, on 24th February, 1975 and thereafter by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, on 17th March, 1975,3. The petitioner was arrested by the local police on 2-12-1974. Thereafter he was kept in detention by a series of orders of remand obtained by the investigating agency from the learned Judicial Magistrate during the course of investigation. The investigation, however, could not be completed within a total period of 60 days from the date of the arrest of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate did not release the petitioner on bail even after the expiry ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1921All365; 60Ind.Cas.428
Piggott, J.1. I have before me two applications which have been preferred as miscellaneous applications iu First Appeal No. 198 of 1920. The unusual nature of the applications is apparent as much from the headings as from the actual contents of these papers. The names of the parties to the first appeal are of course given, but the miscellaneous application, as it describes itself, is made in terms as against the King-Emparor, opposite party, and notice has, under the orders of this Court, gone to the Government Advocate and to no one else, An appearance has been entered on behalf of the plaintiff respondent to the first appeal, but I do not think I should be justified in taking any action upcn this fact, seeing that notice was not ordered to go to him. The two applications are connected in this way. Raj Kunwar Singh is the defendant appellant in First Appeal No. 198 of 1920; which has been admitted and is pending yi this Court; the other applicant, Sundar Lal, is described in the affid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 72Ind.Cas.624
ORDERWallace, J.1. This is a case referred by the Sessions Judge of Ganjam. The Town Sub-Magistrate of Berhampore purporting to act under Section 231 of Act XIV of 1920 (Madras Local Boards Act) not only directed a toll gate lessee to pay up fees due from him to the Ganjam District Board, but fined him Rs. 25 as well. The Sessions Judge is of opinion that the levy of fine is illegal and I quite agree with him.2. The point of some difficulty raised is, whether this Court, sitting in the exercise of its powers of criminal revision, has authority to deal with such a case; in other words, whether the Magistrate is, when he takes action under Section 221 of Act XIV of 1920, an inferior criminal Court within the meaning of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The word 'Magistrate' is not defined in Act XIV of 1920, consequently, I must fall back on the definition in the Madras General Clauses Act, viz., 'any person exercising all or any of the powers of a Magistrate under the Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1963]14STC628(Kar)
ORDER1. This criminal revision case relates to a reference by the District Magistrate of Raichur and purports to be under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is in respect of an order dated 18th October, 1962, made by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Deodurg, in Criminal Case No. 45/3 of 1962 refusing to take proceedings for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 192 which had been assessed as the sales tax due from the respondent for the year 1959-60. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Raichur, had applied to the Magistrate, under section 13(3)(b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the recovery of this amount as if it had been a fine imposed by the Magistrate. The Magistrate refused to take proceedings on the ground that the Commercial Tax Officer had assessed a wrong person and that respondent Venkoba Naik was not the person from whom the said tax was due. 2.The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer preferred a revision petition to the District Magis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1987)2GLR888
ORDERRule issued on 22-2-85 is hereby made absolute. Costs to be costs in the cause.Dt. 4-12-1985 Sd/- M.S. DesaiJudge,Court No. 13.5. It was urged by Mr. Shethna that because the said suit was filed and because the aforesaid orders were obtained on Ex. 5, original opponent had filed the above application for staying the Chapter proceedings in the first place. He further submitted, and it has also been specifically stated in paragraph 3 of the above application before this Court, that as the learned Magistrate by rejecting the said application presented by orig. opponent Ashokkumar had observed that the various decisions cited by original opponent to the effect that proceedings could be closed but the same could not be stayed, the orig. opponent Ashokkumar was constrained to file another application for closing the chapter proceedings on the very same grounds. It is, therefore, pertinent to note that the aforesaid challenge regarding staying of the proceedings as well as closing of the...
Tag this Judgment!