Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-19-1972
Reported in : 1973CriLJ799; (1972)GLR967
ORDERD.A. Desai, J.1. Petitioner is the original accused in Criminal Case No. 731 of 1971 an the file of the City Magistrate. 5th Court. Ahmedabad, Opponent No. 1 is the original complainant. Opponent No. 1 had filed Criminal Case No. 2 of 1971 in the Court of the City Magistrate, 9th Court, Ahmedabad on 10th March 1971. The learned City Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant on oath and passed an order that process for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code should be issued. The case, for the reasons to be presently mentioned came to be transferred to the 8th Court. When the case was pending before the 8fi Court, complainant gave an application on 4th May 1971 requesting the learned Magistrate that the complainant had alleged certain facts in the complaint which if prima facie accepted would indicate that offence under Section 467 read with Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code is committed and as this offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Session th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-31-1972
Reported in : (1973)14GLR66
D.A Desai, J.1. Respondent No. 2 Mahmadbhai Kalubhai lodged an information of an offence at Deesa Police Station on 16th April 1971 alleging that the present petitioner has committed an offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating in respect of a jeep car bearing No. GJC. 1878 and the offence was registered. The Investigating Officer in course of investigation seized the jeep car from the petitioner and thereafter followed a very curious and thoroughly illegal procedure of handing over jeep car to the petitioner after taking a bond from him without reporting seizure to the Magistrate. After handing over jeep car in question, the Investigating Officer sent a yadi on 26th May 1971 to the Judicial Magistrate First Class intimating to him the fact of handing over of jeep car to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 7th July 1971 called upon the Investigation Officer to explain how he handed over jeep car in question to the petitioner without the permission of the cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-23-1972
Reported in : (1973)14GLR184
D.A. Desai, J.1. Dahya Deva, original accused in Summary Case No. 874 of 1971, on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Railways, Viramgam, has filed this revision application against his conviction, for an offence under Section 104 of the Indian Railways Act, and sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 10/-, in default to suffer S.I. for one week.2. When this revision petition was taken up for hearing, a question was raised whether this Court should entertain this revision application, at this stage, when the applicant did not choose to move the Session Judge, who, could, as well, exercise the revisional jurisdiction, conferred upon him by Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 435(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that the High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within the local limits of its or his jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-01-1972
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1015; (1973)GLR181
ORDERD.A. Desai, J.1. This matter comes before this Court upon a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge. Bhavnagar, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, recommending that the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Bhavnagar, on February 22. 1971. in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 76 of 1970 be set aside and the learned Judicial Magistrate be directed to hear the objections taken up by the husband in his memo of objection. A few relevant facts may be stated. Bai Kasiben Bhana-bhai, wife of Mehta Popatlal Bhanushanker, made an application, under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhavnagar, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 1969, alleging that Mehta Popatlal Bhanushanker was her husband and that he has neglected or refused to maintain her and a direction be given that her husband should pay her an amount of Rs. 40/- per month by way of maintenance. An order to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-10-1972
Reported in : (1973)14GLR169
D.A. Desai, J.1. Petitioner Suryakant alias Suresh Laxmisbankar Dave 'has preferred this Revision Application against an order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajkot in Maintenance Application No. 40 of 1969 by which the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay to his wife respondent No. 1 Indumati Vithaldas Daiya maintenance in the amount of Rs. 130/-made up of Rs. 35/- per month for each child and Rs. 60/- per month for herself under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code which order was subsequently confirmed in Criminal Revision Application No. 44 of 1970 preferred by the present petitioner in the Court of Session at Rajkot.2. The petitioner married with respondent on 26th May 1960 at Porbandar. Hitesh is first son born to the wife on 31st January 1961 at Rajkot and Nayan is the second son born to her on 14th July 1962 at Rajkot. Respondent No. 1 wife is serving in the District Panchayat at Rajkot and has been staying in the rented premises with h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-20-1972
Reported in : (1973)14GLR209
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner challenges the externment order, dated January 10,1972, under Section 57(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,' for a period of two years from four contiguous districts. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on March 30, 1971, informing him that he had been thrice convicted for offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and he was still continuing his activities for similar offences not only in Rajkot District but also in the limits of the three contiguous Districts of Surendranagar, Bhavnagar and Amreli, and, therefore, it was proposed to extern him from all these four Districts. The three convictions which were mentioned were under the various sections of the Prohibition Act in 1967 and 1968. Particulars were given about his activities of similar offences by mentioning that: (1) on February 27, 1969 in Jasdan village in Vajsur locality in the evening at 5-45 P. M., he was caught with country liquor mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-28-1972
Reported in : 1973CriLJ533; (1972)GLR748
1. This application has been directed against the order passed by the learned City Magistrate, 7th court, Ahmedabad remanding the accused to police custody upto 17th February 1972.2. This petition involves an interesting question of law whether a Magistrate can authorise detention of a person in the police custody in a cognizable offence which was bailable.3. The present petitioner Kanubhai Chhaganlal Brahmbhatt was arrested by the police for an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420, I.P.C. The prosecution case was that this petitioner along with one Ramesh who was absconding was alleged to have sold gold ingots to the value of Rs. 3000/- to the complainant Jayantilal Hemchand. It transpires that the said ingots were not of gold but they were brass pieces. A complaint thereupon was lodged with the police by the said Jayantilal as a result, the accused was arrested and after his arrest, the police approached the learned Magistrate for obtaining remand of the accused for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-10-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Guj1; (1973)0GLR88
2. Mr. N. H. Bhatt, leaned Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that the question of ordinary residence is a question of fact and not a question of presumption. He conceded that the mere face that the minor children resided at village Vaghel on the date of the application by itself would not be sufficient for the Court to come to the conclusion that Vaghel village was the ordinary pace of residence of the minor children. The Court has to look to all relevant facts and circumstances and decide on the basis of them as to what is the place of ordinary residence of minor children. Mr. Bhatt urged that it was an admitted position that Virbala, the mother of the minor children, left her husband's home at Palanpur on 31st October, 1967,. Even according to the husband's own case,. even prior to that leaving her husband's home Virbala used to stay more often at her parents' place rather than at her husband's home with an animus desertendi, On the ground of desertion, the husband t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-13-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Guj195; (1973)1GLR347
1. This appeal raises a very interesting question of law whether the by the farmed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, would be applicable to a person residing in an area which was subsequently included within in the municipal limits of the city of Ahmedabad.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as under:--The present appellants are the owners of land bearing survey number 260 situated with limits of Paldi village. They had constructed rooms, houses, garage workshop etc. and installed machinery thereon for oil mill, cloth printing works and other trades. The land bearing survey number 260 was not within the limits of the Corporation when the Act was enacted and came into force in the city of Ahmedabad. The said land was included within the city limits of 13-8-1958. The plaintiff had made certain construction viz. a chimney with platform and a boiler with a platform and the shed thereon, without giving an int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-21-1972
Reported in : (1973)14GLR194
A.D. Desai, J.1. This second appeal comes before us for final decision on the reference made by our brother D. A. Desai. J. Shortly stated the relevant facts are that the appellant-defendant and respondent-plaintiff are neighbours and their houses are adjoining. The suit house of the defendant is situated in the east of that of the plaintiff. Till the filing of the suit, the house of the defendant had a ground floor only. There is a wall dividing the two houses. The total length of the wall is 22 feet. The breadth of the wall is 9 inches. There is no dispute between the parties that the common wall having the length of 19 feet on the ground floor is a joint wall. The first 4 feet of the wall is admittedly of the exclusive ownership of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had constructed a first floor and in so doing he increased the height of this common wall. It was the case of the plaintiff that this wall on the first floor which was erected on the common wall was his exclusive property. In ...
Tag this Judgment!