Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-13-1961
Reported in : 1961CriLJ227; (1961)2GLR218
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This reference has been made by the learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha, for quashing an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palanpur, committing the accused to stand his trial before the Sessions Court for the offences under Sections 369, 379 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts giving rise to this reference may be shortly stated as follows.2. The accused is admittedly fifteen years old and is a child within the meaning of the Bombay Children Act, 1948, which applies to the Banaskantha District. The accused was charged with having committed offences under Sections 369, 379 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palampur. It appears that while the learned Magistrate was trying the case against the accused under the provisions of the Act, an application was submitted by the Police Prosecutor drawing the attention of the Judicial Magistrate to a recent decision of the High Court of Mysore in the case of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-25-1961
Reported in : (1961)2GLR240
V.B. Raju, J.1. In this Criminal revision application, it is urged that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code, is erroneous and should be set aside. Accused Nos. 2 and 3, who were the servants of accused No. 1, were convicted under Sections 453 and 341, Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case was that on 21-5-59, the complainant Rambhai closed his room No. 21 and went to his son, who was at the College. In his absence, according to the prosecution, the accused broke open the lock of the room and took possession of it, and when the complainant returned, he saw that the lock of his room had been broken open and accused Nos. 2 and 3 were removing household goods from the room and throwing them outside in verandah. When the complainant asked them why they were throwing the goods, the complainant was threatened with violence. He filed a complaint and the prosecution ended in the conviction of accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-16-1961
Reported in : AIR1962Guj218; 1963CriLJ119; (1962)GLR14
Shelat, J. * * * * *5. The question arising in this application is whether the learned Sessions Judge had Jurisdiction under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the Magistrate to commit the three applicants to the Court of Session on a charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 Of the Penal Code.6. Section 437 inter alia provides that when, on examining the record of any case under Section 435 or otherwise, the Sessions Judge considers that such case is triable exclusively by the Court of Session and that an accused person has been Improperly discharged by the inferior Court, the Sessions Judge may cause him to be arrested, and may thereupon instead of directing a fresh inquiry, order him to be committed for trial upon the matter of which he has been, in the opinion of the Sessions Judge improperly discharged. There are two provisos to Section 437, but we do not propose to cite them here as they are not relevant for the purposes of this inquiry.7. Mr. Nanavatty a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-24-1961
Reported in : AIR1961Guj127; 1961CriLJ85; (1961)0GLR431
V.B. Raju, J.1. This revision application arises out of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Nadia, who confirmed in appeal the convictions of the seven applicants under Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and the sentences passed on them of fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default imprisonment for one month.2. In revision, the learned counsel for the applicants has argued three points: (1) That the conviction under Section 5 of the Gambling Act is not justified when the P. S. I. who made the search under Section 6 of the Gambling Act is contradicted by both the Panchas, who say that they were not present in the room at the time when it was searched, although according to the P. S. I. the search was made in the presence of the Panchas; (2) that such a conviction is not justified when the P. S. I. is contradicted by the head constable, who accompanied him, and who has deposed that he does not remember whether the particular room, in which, according to the prosecution, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-27-1961
Reported in : 1961CriLJ78
ORDERBhagwati, J.1. The short and interesting question' which arises in this Criminal Revision Application is as regards the weight to be attached to a report of a Chemical Examiner when the report is tender ed as evidence under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without summoning and examining the Chemical Examiner as to the subject-matter of the report. The accused was tried by the Jadicial Magistrate, First Class, Broach for the offence of consuming liquor tinder Section 66(1)(b) oft the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 hereinafter referred to by me as the Act. The charge against-the accused was that on 16th December, 1959 at about 5-45 P.M., he was found on a public road having consumed liquor in contravention of the provisions of the Act. A sample of the blood of1 the accused was taken by the police and submitted to the Chemical Examiner to the Government for determining the concentration of alcohol in the-blood. Though the sample of the blood was taken on 16th' December, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-28-1961
Reported in : AIR1962Guj44; (1961)GLR735
Shelat, J. 1. The principal ground urged by Mr. Shall on behalf of the petitioner was that the proviso to Section 13(5) of the Act was ultra vires inasmuch as that proviso violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution; that the Act did not lay down or indicate any standard for the guidance of the Director or the Public Analyst and conferred absolute, naked and arbitrary powers upon these officers; that the presumption arising out of the certificate issued by the Director was not a conclusive presumption but a rebuttable one and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to challenge the facts stated therein by means of cross-examination or by leading evidence of some other expert.2. Section 13 of the Act provides first for the report of a Public Analyst in respect of the result of the analysis of an article of food submitted to him by a Food Inspector for analysis. Sub-section (2) provides that after the institution of a prosecution, the accus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-05-1961
Reported in : 1962CriLJ328; (1961)GLR623
Raju, J.1. (After stating file facts, the judgment proceeds as under:)2. Under Section 417(3), Criminal Procedure Code, an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from an order of acquittal is to be filed within the period of 60 days from the date of the order of acquittal. The four applications for special leave to appeal from orders of acquittal were filed after the expiration of 78 days from the date of life orders of acquittal, and prima facie they are barred under Sub-section (4) of Section 417, Cri Pro. Code. But, the learned Counsel for the Municipality contends that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Indian Limitation Act, and that the delay, if any, should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He contends that the High Court was closed for vacation from 1st May, 1960, to 12th June, 1960 and that the applications were filed on the clay on which the High Court re-opened. But, the notification announcing the closing of the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-06-1961
Reported in : AIR1962Guj18; (1961)2GLR594
J.M. Shelat, J. 1. Mr. Nanavati, however, pointed out that the State Legislature has also enacted the Bombay Land Tenures Abolition (Recovery of records) Act, 1953, being Act L of 1953, under which a notice has been issued to the appellants to deliver up to the Collector or to an officer appointed by the State Government in that behalf all the land records relating to these villages and lands maintained by them so far. Mr. Nanavati argued that the State was not entitled to call upon the appellants to deliver up these records as Act L of 1953 was not within the legislative competence of the State Legislature and that even if it were to be so, calling upon the appellants to deliver up the records would amount to acquisition or deprivation, within the meaning of Article 31 of the Constitution and would he contrary to the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). Such deprivation would be bad in law as it is sought to be made without any compensation payable to the appellants un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-08-1961
Reported in : AIR1962Guj51; (1962)0GLR96
Raju, J. 7. (The conviction of accused Nos. 1 2, and 6 are challenged in appeal, and the State also challenges the finding of acquittal of accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8.) 22. (Now we will turn to appeal by the State against the acquittal of accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. We have already given reasons for agreeing with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that this is not a case of unlawful assembly nor a case where all the eight accused were actuated by common intention, to cause the murder of Ruda. The learned Sessions Judge was therefore right in not imputing any constructive liability to accused Nos. 3, 4, 7 and 8 in regard to the deaths of Ruda, Punja and Vira, and it is also not the case of the prosecution that these accused caused any fatal injuries to any of the deceased persons. The learned Sessions Judge was therefore right in acquitting accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 in respect of the charge relating to the deaths of Ruda, Punja and Vira. But, the learned Assistant Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-11-1961
Reported in : AIR1962Guj21; (1961)GLR635; (1961)0GLR165
Raju, J. 1. This is a writ petition filed by three persons praying for an appropriate writ to direct the first respondent, who is the President of the Baroda Borough Municipality, to desist from preventing the petitioners from acting as councillors of the Baroda Municipality.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under - The three petitioners are councillors of Baroda Borough Municipality and also members of the Sanitary Committee of the Baroda Borough Municipality. On 9-3-61, they sent a letter of resignation from the Sanitary Committee addressed to the President as a protest against the manner of implementation of the Scheme of compulsory vaccination for small-pox. This letter was treated by the President as a letter of resignation as councillors and not as a letter of resignation from the Sanitary Committee of which the three petitioners happened to be members. On 10-3-61, the President wrote a letter to the three petitioners acknowledging receipt of ...
Tag this Judgment!