Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1253
Baxi, J.1. This revision arises out of an application which the present applicant presented to the First Class Magistrate, Junagadh, in respect of certain land under Section 145, Criminal P.C. The land comprises of a field and a wadi in Rampur.2. The land in question belonged to Nizam Mahomed Khanji the Barkhalidar of Ranpur under the former Junagadh State and measured about 100 Vighas. The applicant and one Jivram Rugnatli were the lessees from the Barkhalidar but to 1944 A.D. the Barkhalidar resumed the land from them and handed it over to the opponents on payment of Nazrana while he gave the applicant and his co-sharers 40 Vighas of land in exchange, The applicant's co-sharer is not a party to these proceedings and all references will hereafter be made to the applicant only in connection with this land and the proceedings connected with it. After the administration of the Junagadh State was taken over by the Government of India, the Junagadh Government published notification No. R/2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1307
Shah, C.J.1. This reference raises an important question of law on which there is a divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts in India. The applicant Narotamdas Shah was prosecuted for defamation under Section 500, Penal Code, in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Junagadh. After some prosecution witnesses were examined the Magistrate was transferred and was succeeded by another Magistrate, and the accused having then demanded that the witnesses be resummoned and reheard, the learned Magistrate held that under Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 350(1), Criminal P.C., an accused person can demand resummoning of witnesses as a matter of right in a trial and not in an enquiry, and that the case against the accused was only at the stage of an enquiry inasmuch as the charge had not been framed, and he, therefore, refused to resummon the witnesses. The accused having applied in revision, the Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the Magistrate's order was not correct and he made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1531
Shah, C.J.1. This is an application for a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, who was accused in the case, was tried along with five others, for offences of dacoity and grievous hurt under Sections 395 and 326, Penal Code, and was convicted by the Additional Sessions judge, Gondal, and on appeal the conviction of the petitioner and accused 2, 3 and 6 was confirmed, while accused 4 and 5 were acquitted by this Court. All the accused were also charged under Section 19(e), Arms Act, but en this charge they were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge himself. The petitioner now wants a certificate that his case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.2. The facts necessary for appreciating the points urged in support of this application briefly stated are that accused 1 and the remaining accused and the deceased dacoit Devayat had, on 9.1.1952, planned a dacoity to be committed at Rib, a village about 13 to 14 miles from Rajkot, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1955CriLJ259
Baxi, J.(1) The question raised in this revision is the nature of privilege which attaches to defamatory statements made in a complaint to the police Under Section 154, Cr.PC(2) The applicant made a report at the Police Station, Rajkot, on 9-8-1951 that a theft was committed in his shop during the previous night and a cream separator was stolen. The applicant stated in the complaint that he suspected both the opponents as thieves. The houses and the shops of the opponents were thereupon searched by the Sub-Inspector but nothing incriminating was recovered. Subsequently the police applied to the First Class Magistrate, Rajkot, for permission to keep the investigation on dormant flie as they were unable to trace the offenders.The opponents thereafter filed two separate complaints against the applicant charging him with the offence of defamation punishable Under Section 500, IPC The applicant's defence was that he had made the complaint against the opponents in good faith. He was however ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1955CriLJ267
Baxi, J.(1) This writ petition is against the order of ex-ternment passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Central Saurashtra, Under Section 47 (B) of the Saurashtra District Police (Amendment) Act, 1951.(2) A notice Under Section 47(E) was served on the petitioner and after hearing his explanation and examining a witness produced by him the learned District Magistrate passed the above order on 29-7-52 ordering the petitioner to remove himself from the limits of the Central Saurashtra Division by a specified route to Bhavnagar and not to re-enter the said limits for a period of two years without permission in writing from the Government.(3) The petitioner's learned advocate challenged the order on various grounds. His first objection was that the material allegations against the petitioner mentioned in the notice were vague and lacked sufficient particulars to enable him to give an effective and complete explanation. His second contention was that these allegations di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1955CriLJ838
ORDERBaxi, J.1. The facts leading to this revision may be briefly stated as under :2. The opponent filed a complaint with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Junagadh, that he had purchased a certain house in Malia by a registered sale deed dated 16-11-53 and was in possession of the house and had locked it. On 8-12-53 while he was opening the lock and entering the house he thought that the applicant was going to prevent him from entering it and therefore he tried to relock the house but the applicant tried to prevent him from doing so by catching hold OS his hand but he succeeded in relocking the house. The opponent then went home but in his absence the applicant opened the lock and entered the house and began to throw away its contents on the road. On hearing this the opponent came and found the applicant sitting in the door of the house and was prevented by him from entering the house.During the investigation the police sent a report to the First Class Magistrate wherein they requested for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1955CriLJ1398
Chhatpar, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, suggesting that this High Court should set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, passed on an application under Section 145 of the Cri. Pro. Code in favour of the opponent Velji Narsi of Mendarda against Pola Shambhu.2. The opponent had filed an application on 2-7-52 under the above Section complaining of interference with his possession of land by Pola Shambhu. which was likely to cause breach of peace before the First Class Magistrate (Judicial), Junagadh. The First Class Magistrate recorded the statement on oath of the original applicant Velji and passed a preliminary order, whereby he ordered Pola Shambhu to furnish security for maintaining peace in the sum of Rs. 500/- for a period of six months. He at the same time ordered the usual issue of notice to him for hearing of the main application. Both the parties appeared before the Magistrate on 14-7-52, but the case was adjourned to 16-7-52. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1955CriLJ56
Chhatpar, J.(1) This revision application is to revise an order of Mr. M. C. Sheth, the First Class Magistrate, Jasdan, rejecting an application of the applicants for a de novo trial.(2) The Vinchhia Sub-police station registered a case against the applicants Under Section 326, IPC which was changed into a case Under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC Now this offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. The case was started after a charge-sheet was sent to the Court of the First Class Magistrate of Jasdan on 22-6-1953. The First Class Magistrate then was Mr. M. M. Modha, who recorded good part of the evidence. He was thereafter transferred and succeeded by Mr. M. C. Sheth, before whom the application was made for a de novo trial, the charge not having been framed till the transfer of Mr. Modha.(3) The question of law that arises is whether the accused is entitled as of right to a de novo trial by virtue of-clause (a) of proviso to Section 350, Criminal Procedure Code. Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1955CriLJ1399
Baxi, J.1. The applicant Himatlal was the Special Ghar. khed Mamlatdar, Limbdi. It is alleged that he destroyed certain orders and proceedings with the help of the appellant 2, his brother, in two Gharkhed cases Nos. 1916 and 1917 and substituted new orders and proceedings. The original proceedings and orders were not according to law; the applicant Himatlal apprehended a departmental inquiry and caused destruction and substitution of the record with a view to escape detection. In respect of these two cases two charge-sheets were submitted by the police which were registered as criminal cases Nos. 12 and 13 of 1953 in the Court of the First Class Magistrate of Limbdi. The applicants were accused of more than three distinct offences and abetment thereof in respect of these acts. In 8 other Gharkhed cases the applicant Himatlal alone is alleged to have committed similar acts of destruction and substitution of new records with a similar object. In respect of these 8 cases six non-cognizab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1955CriLJ52
Baxi, J.(1) In this case the point for determination The whether the Court can take cognizance of as offence Under Section 188, IPC without a complaint in writing of the public officer concerned.(2) The Plead Constable of the Jesar Thanm made a report to the Sub-Inspector complaining of obstruction by the respondents in the discharge of his official duty and hurt. After stating the facts in the report he had stated that lie was thereby 'making complaint for proceeding against the respondents according to law.' The In-change Sub-Inspector, who received the report, .'the permanent Sub-Inspector being out of station, investigated into the offence and a charge-sheet to the Magistrate was sent by the Sub-Inspector, to trtwm the case was made over on his return. The learned Magistrate held after a trial that he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in the absence of a proper complaint as required, by Section 195(1), Criminal P. C. and acquitted the respondent.(3) The learned ...
Tag this Judgment!