Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-13-1981
Reported in : 1982CriLJ2037; (1982)1GLR27
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner, who happens to be the brother of one Kan-tilal Amratlal Kotecha who is the detenu in the present case, challenges the order of detention made by the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar dated Jan. 21, 1981 seeking to detain said Shri Kanti-lal as in the opinion of the detaining authority the detenu had a disclosed tendency to commit offences Under Section 3 of the prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. Shortly stated, the facts leading to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order and direction, are as under:2. The detenu is an authorised dealer in kerosene for the area of Bhavnagar and Amreli district, except Bhavnagar city and Bhavnagar taluka, The detenu holds licences for dealing in kerosene and light diesel oil and for that purpose he has entered into an agreement with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on Mar. 21, 1968. It is the grievance of the detenu that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-09-1981
Reported in : 1982CriLJ1895; (1981)GLR1117
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein is the brother of one Bhaskar Gunvantrai Bhatt who has been detained under the provisions of Section 3, Sub-section (2), of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as N. S. A). The order of detention has been passed by the first respondent, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, and is dated Feb. 20, 1981. The order states that the Commissioner of Police who has been authorised under the provisions of Section 3 Sub-section (3) of N.S.A. was satisfied with respect to the detenu that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad City, it was necessary to make the order directing that the said detenu Bhaskar Gunvantrai Bhatt be detained and hence this order of detention was being passed. The grounds of detention which were duly furnished to the detenu in due time required by law are dated Feb. 21, 1981. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-16-1981
Reported in : 1983CriLJ315; (1982)2GLR136
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, an order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Ahmedabad City calling upon three persons produced before him by the police to furnish bail in the proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal P. C.2. In order to appreciate the nature of controversy raised for our consideration, it is necessary to glance through a few relevant facts.3. During the recent agitation with respect to reservation of seats in medical colleges, one Narendra Chandrashanker Jha along with one Jayeshbhai Dhanandebhai Shukla and Bharatbhai Arvindbhai Dave was sitting at about 9-30 a. m. on 26-3-1981 at the foot of the statue of Mahatma Gandhi located under the Income-tax cross-roads in the city of Ahmedabad. It was alleged that these three persons were shouting slogans. The police-sub-inspector, Navrangpura police station, who is respondent No. 1 in this petition arrested these three per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-23-1981
Reported in : (1981)22GLR712
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In this case the petitioners challenge the validity of a notification issued by the Government of Gujarat under Section 7 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (herein-after refened to as the Act), discontinuing the Commission which the State Government had appointed on September 9, 1979 under Section 3 of the Act.2. It may be pointed out that the notification under Section 7 was issued on March 17, 1981 but the petition was filed on the same day earlier on 17th March 1981. The petition was filed on the basis that the Government was about to issue the said notification under Section 7 and in the petition as originally framed, the prayer was to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order permanently restraining the respondents, their agents and servants from winding up or obstructing or interfering with the proceedings of the Commission. Prayer (B) was to quash and declaretde notification or order, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-09-1981
Reported in : 1982CriLJ284; (1981)GLR1232(GJ)
..... magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him.under clause (c) of the proviso:no magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the high court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police.explanation i to the proviso was added by section 14 of the code of criminal procedure ..... to be released on bail under proviso (a) to section 167(2) of the code of 1973 if (he conditions laid down in section 167(2) proviso (a) were satisfied. ..... cause' occurring in sub-section (1-a) of section 344 is nowhere to be found in section 309 of the new code, the explanation to section 344 of the old code has been retained in explanation i to section 309 in the identical language. the law as engrafted in proviso (a) to section 167(2) and section 309 of the new code confers the powers of remand to jail custody during the pendency of the investigation only for the former and not under the latter. section ..... inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, subject to the provisions of section 446-a and pending such inquiry, be released on bail, or, at the discretion of such officer or court, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.sub-section (5) of section 437 provides:any court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section ..... previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-22-1981
Reported in : 1982CriLJ2014; (1981)GLR956
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. The first five special criminal applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the Misc. Criminal Application No. 1418 of 1980 filed by the original accused raise common questions of law, though the incidents at the root of these first five matters arise out of different criminal cases at one time pending in one or the other Court of the Metropolitan Magistrates, Ahmedabad.2. The special criminal application Nos. 3 to 7 of 1981 arise out of the orders in the criminal cases Nos. 1318/79, 263/79, 717/79, 1320/79 and 134/79 respectively in those Courts. The concerned learned Magistrate in these five cases held that as the accused were Police Officers and as the prosecution was launched without obtaining the previous sanction of the State Government as required under Section 197(2) of the CrI.P.C., the prosecutions were bad and so they were dropped. Being aggrieved by the said common decision, criminal revision applications Nos. 27/83, 134/80, 30/80, 28/80...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-03-1981
Reported in : (1982)1GLR116
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. During the trial of a criminal case wherein the question of handwriting is involved whether the accused are entitled to the copies of the enlarged photographs from the prosecution under the provisions of section 173(5) and section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the question which is involved in nil these misc. criminal applications.2. The accused, the present applicants, are being prosecuted before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad for the Offences punishable Under Sections 467, 471', etc. of the penal Code. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the handwriting expert because the handwriting expert had given opinion about the handwritings of the accused. At the trial stage the applicants made a request to the Court that because they are not supplied with the enlarged photographs of the disputed and admitted signatures, it would not be possible for them to prepare their defence properly. It was also mentioned that the accused wanted to take help of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-14-1981
Reported in : 1982CriLJ1110; (1982)1GLR464
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The appellant was charged for having committed the murder of his wife on the night of 11/12th Dec. 1978 at his hutment situate in Koyli Khadi Zopadpatti outside Kamela Darwaja, Surat The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, convicted him Under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant-accused feeling aggrieved by this order of conviction and sentence has preferred the present appeal.2. The prosecution case against the appellant, briefly stated, runs as under :One Bai Dhanu, daughter of Bhagu Khushal, was married to the appellant about four years before the unfortunate incident took place. After marriage she lived with the appellant in his hutment. They lived a happy married life for about one year. Thereafter it appears that the appellant developed intimacy with one Manjula and began to ill-treat his wife, the deceased. The appellant was keen to obtain a divorce but the deceased was not prepared to obl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-19-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Guj163; (1982)1GLR611
G.K. Mehta, J. 1. Since in these two applications the election of Bilimora Municipality and Bulsar Municipality held in Oct., 1980 have been challenged mainly on the ground of breach of the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 or the Gujarat Municipalities Election Rules, 1964 pertaining to the preparation of electoral rolls, we intend to dispose of these two applications by this common order. Before we address ourselves to the contentions urged by the respective petitioners it would be profitable to set out a few relevant facts of both these applications, so that the contentions can be appreciated in proper context. 2. Petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 2964/80 are the defeated candidates in the elections of Bilimora Municipality and they seek to challenge the elections to wards Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the said Municipality. Respondents Nos, 4 to 6 are elected candidates from ward No, 2; respondents Nos. 7 to 9 are elected from ward No. 6; respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-20-1981
Reported in : 1982CriLJ508; (1982)1GLR56
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Whether after the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh v. Slate of Punjab : 1980CriLJ1125 the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Narsinh Revaji v. State (1981) 22 Guj LR 234, to the following effect:-.Sections 437 and 438 have got to be read together because it is inconceivable that, an accused charged with having committed murder is entitled to anticipatory bail Under Section 438 even if he is not entitled to bail Under Section 437. To take the view that the benefit of Section 438 is available to all accused including persons accused of having committed murder is to defeat the provisions of Section 437. If such a person is released on anticipatory bail, he will always continue to remain on bail until the trial is over. In such a case the bar enacted by Section 437 will never become operative. We are, therefore, of the view that a person accused of having committed murder is not entitled to anticipatory bail Under Section 438 of the Code o...
Tag this Judgment!