Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-04-1982
Reported in : 1982CriLJ1880; (1982)1GLR661
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The State of Gujarat, the appellant herein, is dissatisfied and aggrieved by the order of acquittal in respect of the present respondents Nos. 1 to 15 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhagadia, on 23-4-1979 from the charge under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 426, 336, 337, 225 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.2. The prosecution case before the learned Judicial Magistrate was that the accused Nos. 13 to 15 (the present respondents Nos. 13 to 15) were apprehended while committing theft of cotton-pods. They were detained at the house of Police Patel, village Chikli. Therefore, accused Nos. 1 to 12 and some 150 other persons formed an unlawful assembly at 13-30 hours and attacked, equipped with weapons, the house of Police Patel and the water-works of the Panchayat. In the course of that attack, P. W. 2 was injured on his eyebrow.3. The Rojkam of Criminal Case No. 1448 of 1978, shows that a charge-sheet was filed date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-08-1982
Reported in : (1982)2GLR449; (1983)ILLJ255Guj
Shukla, J. 1. A government Labour Officer and Inspector of the Office of the commissioner of Labour, Gujarat State, filed a complaint against the present respondents for contravention of Rule 21 of (the Rules frames under) the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act', and for the non-compliance with the order issued under the said Act punishable under S. 24 of the said Act. The same complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 49 of 1977 in the Court of the Metropolitan magistrate at Ahmedabad. 2. On behalf of the complaint, one Mr. K. T. Vazirani was examined. His evidence is brief and we may note the same at the outset. He stated that he was working as an Inspector under the provisions of the said Act and as such on 18.2.1977 he visited one Nayan Trading Company at about 9.00 a.m. One Shirish Shah, accused No. 2 was present. He was the principal employer. Thereafter, at about 3.30 p.m., the same Shirish Shah and the complainant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-15-1982
Reported in : (1982)2GLR573
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. In this appeal the State has challenged the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First-Class, Radhanpur in Criminal Case No. 48 of 1979 on 8th May, 1979. The prosecution had alleged that the accused had committed offences under sees 447 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code by illegally entering into the Wada (cattle shed) of the complainant on 29th October, 1978, between 8 hours and 18 hours and had stolen two iron chains which were being used for tethering buffalows. The value of the two chains was said to be Rs. 20/-. The accused was charge-sheeted on 9-1-79 and he entered the plea of not guilty on 6-2-79. The matter came up for hearing on 1-3-79 when the accused was not present, but his Advocate who was present, gave an application for adjournment and hence the matter was fixed for hearing on 1st May, 1979. On that day the accused and his Advocate were present in the court, but the witnesses for the prosecution did not remain present. The court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-20-1982
Reported in : 1983CriLJ604; (1982)2GLR372
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The Food Inspector, Bhuj Municipality, filed a criminal complaint No. 164 of 1979 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj, against the present respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the commission of an offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the ground that grams (Chhanadal) were adulterated. In order to lodge a complaint the Food Inspector had sought sanction of the local authority as required by 20 (1) of the Act, That section reads as under:20 (1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being an offence under Section 14 or Section 14-A, shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government.The prosecution was neither under Section 14 nor Section 14-A of the Act. After the institution of the complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-21-1982
Reported in : (1982)2GLR359
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner husband has filed this application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter called 'the Code') requesting this Court to stay further proceedings in criminal Misc. application no. 106 of 1982 filed by the respondent No. 1. wife in the court of the Chief J.M.F.C., Rajkot under Section 125 of the Code.2. It must be pointed out at the outset that this revision application as such is not maintainable as it is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the learned trial Magistrate refusing to stay further proceedings in an application under Section 125 of the Code which is pending in his court. When this hurdle was realised by Mr. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner, he made an oral request to permit him to convert this revision application into a special criminal application. 1 have granted him the said permission and accordingly this application is ordered to be treated as a special criminal application unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-28-1982
Reported in : (1982)2GLR392
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioners who are original accused in criminal cases Nos. 167 and 168 of 1981 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th court, Ahmedabad, have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), praying for quashing these proceedings arid the processes issued therein against the petitioners on the ground that these proceedings are ex-facie not maintainable.2. The impugned criminal proceedings as filed against the petitioners refer to certain alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Respondent No. 2 herein who is the minimum wages inspector has filed the complaints against the petitioners on that ground. These complaints have resulted into the aforesaid two criminal cases against the petitioners. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has issued process to the petitioners in these cases. The petitioners' con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-06-1982
Reported in : (1982)2GLR317
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. Both these petitions are filed against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case no. 3041 of 1975, by which the learned Magistrate was pleased to release the petitioner (original accused no. 13) Sukar Narayan Bakhia (hereinafter referred to as 'the concerned accused') on bail with various conditions.2. In Criminal Revision Application no. 432 of 1982, the conditions are attacked on the ground that they are too severe and request is made that the conditions be relaxed, especially pertaining to giving of two solvent sureties of Ahmedabad City proper to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- each. The second petition, being Criminal Revision Application no. 433 of 1982, is filed by original complainant Mr. R.R. Shah, Assistant Commissioner (Acquisition Range) Income-tax, Ahmedabad, making a grievance against the release of the concerned accused on bail even with the conditions attached to the bail order.3. The case has a chequered hist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-10-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Guj123; (1982)2GLR727
ORDERB.K. Mehta, J.1. The comedy of inadvertent error is the real cause in this miscellaneous civil application moved by the petitioners herein who are respectively a practising senior advocate in the District Court at Jamnagar and the courts subordinate thereto and his client who was original opponent of Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 52 of 1981 on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Judge, Jamnagar filed by the wife of petitioner No. 2 for the custody of their child. In the said custody proceedings petitioner No. 2 moved the Court for raising preliminary issue about the competency of the main application. This he did by presenting an application to the Court on Nov. 13, 1981 vide Ex, 27. The learned Assistant Judge by his order of Nov. 27, 1981 rejected the said application and refused to raise the preliminary issue as prayed for. Petitioner No. 2, therefore, moved the learned Assistant Judge for review of the said order on Dec. 22, 1981 which was numbered as Review Appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-19-1982
Reported in : 1983CriLJ62; (1982)2GLR711
ORDERV.V. Bedarkar, J.1. This is an application making a grievance against issue of process by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Narol, on the strength of the complaint filed by opponent No. 1 Mad-hukant T. Shukla (original complainant) against the petitioner. The case of opponent No. 1 - Complainant was that the petitioner had purchased a tractor from the complainant. As the tractor was not in working order, the petitioner is alleged to have told the original complainant that the tractor was to be brought for repairs, but because the wheat season was going on, he may be helped by giving another tractor. So an unregistered tractor was given to the petitioner. As the petitioner did not return either the old tractor or the new tractor, a complaint was given by the original complainant before the police. It was the grievance of the complainant that the police did not make proper investigation, did not record statements and merely attempted to rely on a counter-foil of the cheq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-20-1982
Reported in : 1984(15)ELT353(Guj); (1982)2GLR792
Thakkar, C.J.1. 'Purposeless and Pointless' is a phrase the existentialist philosophers may unhesitatingly employ in connection with their views on 'life'. But a Court of Law would be extremely reluctant to employ such a phrase in the context of a provision of law enacted by the Parliament in its wisdom. Considerations regarding respect for the law -makers apart, the Court itself would be understandably anxious to interpret a provision in a manner which renders it 'meaningless'. And if this approach is made it is impossible to assent to the proposition that the whole purpose of empowering a Customs Officer to arrest a person reasonably believed to have committed an offence under the Customs Act is to enable the Magistrate (before and he is required to be produced within twenty-four hours) to see his face and permit him to go without anything more. 2. The Customs Officer it is said, has the power to arrest and release on bail. If he refuses to release him or the arrested person refuses ...
Tag this Judgment!