Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-14-1960
Reported in : (1960)1GLR133
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Kaira recommending that the order passed by the First Class Magistrate Nadiad rejecting the application by the prosecution for the return of the Muddamal Liquor to the Police for being sent to the Chemical Analyser. The prosecution filed an application before the learned Magistrate for the return of the Muddamal Liquor to the Police in order to enable the Police to send the Muddamal to the Chemical Analyser as the prosecution had only relied on the hydrometer test but in view of the recent ruling of the Bombay High Court is it necessary to get the liquor examined by the Chemical Analyser. The Magistrate was of the view that once the prosecution submitted a charge sheet it is to be considered that the police investigation has been completed. The Police cannot resume the investigation. He therefore thought that the request of the prosecution was not supported by any provision of law and he rejected the application.2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-17-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Guj4; 1961CriLJ54
ORDERRaju, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Kaira recommending that the order passed by the First Class Magistrate, Nadiad, rejecting the application by the prosecution for the return of the Muddamal Liquor to the Police for being sent to the Chemical Analyser. The prosecution filed an application before the learned Magistrate for the return of the Muddamal liquor to the police in order to enable the police to send the Muddamal to the Chemical Analyser, as the prosecution had only relied on the hydrometer test but in view of the recent ruling of the Bombay High Court it is necessary to get the liquor examined by the Chemical Analyser. The Magistrate was of the view that once the prosecution submitted a chargesheet it is to be considered that the police investigation has been completed. The police cannot resume the investigation. He therefore thought that the request of the prosecution was not supported by any provision of law and he rejected the application....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-28-1960
Reported in : AIR1960Guj1; 1960CriLJ1200
(1) At the material time, the accused, house wife, the accused Jamuna and his two sons, the elder being Anther, were living in the village Bhandarda in the District of Sorath. They had come from Papilla to this villages only two or three months prior to the dates of the incident. The accessed had purchased a few months prior to the date of the incident certain fee lands which were situates about half a lie away from the village Bhandarada. On the 11th of May 1959, that being the Ganesh Chaturthi, the accused, the deceasesds Jamuna and their two sons went to a the place called 'Dhukhan' apparently to bring some earth from there. They had gone in apart belonging to the accused and there was a crow bar with them when they went to the place. At about 9 a.m., the accused returned to the villages accompanied, how-ever, only by his younger son about three years of age. While he was passing by the house of the AR Panache of the village, witness Bhaishanker Pranjivan, the accessed called out to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-05-1960
Reported in : (1960)1GLR127
V.B. Raju, J.1. These revision applications are in respect of an acquittal of one Khoja Habibhai Zaverbhai who was charged under Section 480 Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Radhanpur acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 49 of 1959 and the Revision application was filed before the Bombay High Court which was No. 2013 of 1959. In that application it was ordered by the High Court of Bombay that a revision application should be filed before the Sessions Judge and the matter was sent back. A revision application had accordingly been filed before the Sessions Judge who has however dismissed it. The complainant has therefore made another application before the Gujarat High Court which is No. 254 of 1960.2. In both these petitions the prayer is that the acquittal of opponent No. 1 under Section 408 Indian Penal Code should be set aside and he should be convicted. Session Judge agreed with the finding of the trying Magistrate that the accused was a partner of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-08-1960
Reported in : AIR1960Guj9; 1960CriLJ1330; (1960)GLR64
ORDER(1) This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, recommending that the order dated 18-7-59 passed by the First Class Magistrate, Gondal, in Criminal Case No. 190 of 1959 holding that he would not allow the prosecution to contradict the evidence given by its witness under the proviso to S. 162(1), Criminal Procedure Code 'without declaring him hostile and save in his cross-examination' be set aside, as it is wrong.(2) Section 137 of the Evidence Act provides that the examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called him examination-in-chief and the examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called him cross-examination. Section 142 of the Evidence Act provides; 'leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court'. Section 143 of the Evidence Act provides that leading questions may be asked in cross-examination. Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-08-1960
Reported in : AIR1969Guj24; 1960CriLJ1447; (1960)GLR77
ORDER(1) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaira at Nadiad, recommending that the conviction of one Raijibhai in Summary Case No. 1164 of 1959 tried by the III Joint Civil Judge, J. D., and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad, under Section 69 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, and sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- in default rigorous imprisonment for 3 months should be set aside.(2) The prosecution case was that when the house of Raijibhai in the village of Dabhan was raided by the Head Constable of Nadiad Rural Police Station at about 7 A.M. on 9-7-1959 in the presence of two Panchas, 25 seers of Mhowra flowers in a gunny bag were found inside the house, and as he had no pass or permit for the possession of Mhowra flowers, he was prosecuted. At the trial, the evidence of the head constable was not supported by the two panchas both of whom were treated as hostile. According to the two Panchas, the Mhowra flowers were not found inside the house but outside the house of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-22-1960
Reported in : AIR1960Guj37; 1960CriLJ1585
ORDER(1) The applicant was convicted under S. 3(1) and S. 4(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act. The judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Junagath, was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in appeal. Hence this revision application.(2) The prosecution case was that the Assistant Superintendent of Police sent a bogus punter Lalji by name to the house of the applicant with a five rupee currency note; that Lalji gave this currency note to the applicant who thereupon asked Lalji to select a girl for the purpose of prostitution. Lalji selected the wife of the applicant, Jaya alias Indumati by name, and both were allowed to go into a room. The police and Panchas then made a raid and found the punter in the company of Jaya in a compromising attitude on a cot. The five rupee currency note was found in the pocket of the applicant. The applicant was prosecuted. He denied that he was guilty, but...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-26-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Guj8; 1961CriLJ54a
Raju, J.* * * * 1. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the four accused of the charges under Section 302 I. P. Code but convicted all of them under Section 324, I. P. Code, and sentenced each of them to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. In regard to the acquittal of all the four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. Code, the State has filed an appeal from acquittal.* * * * *We hold that there are compelling reasons to set aside the order or acquittal, that the guilt of accused No. 1 under Section 302, I. P. Code, and of accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 324, I. P. Code, is proved beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt, and that the learned Sessions Judge should not have acquitted accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3.* * *2. The learned Sessions Judge held that Bhagwan was murdered on 14-1-59 at 10-30 a. m. near the Chora, that it was accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, who had caused injuries to Bhagwan near the Chora, that at that time accused No. 1 was armed with a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-26-1960
Reported in : 1960CriLJ1588
Shelat, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 491 of the Cr.PC for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for setting at liberty the petitioner who has been detained in the Sabarmati Jail at Ahmedabad since 4-3-1960 under an order dated 4-3-1960 passed by the District Magistrate Ahmedabad, Under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, being Act IV of 1830. The grounds upon which order was issued were furnished to the detention the same day. On the 12th of Match i960, the then Government of Bombay approved the said order as required under Clause (3) of Section 3 of the said Act. The said order together with a representation made by the detenu were sent to the Advisory Board and after a personal hearing was given to the detenu, the Board gave its approval to the order. On the 22nd of April 1960, the State Government passed an order under Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act confirming the order and ordering to continue the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-29-1960
Reported in : AIR1960Guj30; 1960CriLJ1449
ORDER(1) This is an application for transfer of Special Case No. 1 of 1960 from file of the Special Judge having that case to the file of Special Judge, Rajkot.(2) Under S. 526(1) (e) Cr. P. C., the High Court may, for the reasons stated in that section, order (1) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not empowered under Ss. 177 to 184 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence; (2) that any particular case or appeal or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction: (3) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself; or (4) that an accused person be committed for trial to itself or to a Court of Session. Where the order is passed under clause (i) of sub-section (e) or clause (ii) of sub-section (e) of S. 526 (1), Cr. P. C. a case can be transferred to a Court which has jurisdiction to...
Tag this Judgment!