Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-06-1984
Reported in : (1985)1GLR339
M.B. Shah1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 18-7-84 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 209 of 1984 rejecting their application for bail under Section 167(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners have preferred this application.2. The petitioners were arrested on 3rd April 1984 for causing murder of one Kantibhai Becharbhai. They were produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 4th April 1984. From 4th April 1984 they are in judicial custody. The investigating officer submitted charge-sheet on 3rd July 1984. 1st July 1984 was Sunday and 2nd July 1984 was declared as public holiday by the State Government on account of death of Shri Ravishanker Maharaj. The petitioners filed an application on 12th July 1984 before the learned Sessions Judge, Kaira at Nadiad, for releasing them on bail on the ground that charge-sheet was not submitted within 90 days as 90 days were over on 2nd July 1984 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-04-1984
Reported in : (1985)1GLR492
M.B. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 2nd August 1984 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wadhwan in Criminal Case No. 269 of 1984 releasing the respondents on bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the State has filed this revision application.2. Before dealine with the point in controversy it would be necessary to narrate few facts. On 19th January 1984 the incident is alleged to have taken place whereby one Umarbux Mohmedsadiqbux was abducted from Surat and was brought in Fiat car to Ahmedabad. From Ahmedahad he was taken to Surendranagr side where he was murdered by revolver shot. On this allegation a complaint was filed at Wadhwan Police Station in District Surendranagar. It is the prosecution version that the accused-respondents were absconding. On 10th March 1984 the respondents were arrested at Amirgadh, Taluka Amirgadh, District Banaskantha, for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-18-1984
Reported in : 1984(3)ECC64; 1984(16)ELT33(Guj)
ORDERP.S. Poti, C.J. 1. Notice in SCA No. 122/84. Shri H.M. Mehta waives service of notice for the respondents and agrees to have the matter heard today. 2. The petitioners in these cases, four in the first and two in the second have filed these petitions seeking stay of the departmental proceedings under the Customs Act taken up against them pending the disposal of Criminal case No. 639/83 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The 3rd respondent, the Assistant Collector (Preventive) Customs Headquarters filed a criminal complaint in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's court at Ahmedabad against 22 persons including the petitioners in the two cases. Summons have been issued on taking cognizance of this. While the criminal proceeding is thus pending proceedings have been taken up by issue of show cause notice to the petitioners and certain others as to why action should not be taken under the Customs Act in regard to violation of the provisions of the Act by them. The ple...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-25-1984
Reported in : 1985CriLJ974
ORDERA.P. Ravani, J.1. In case of conflict between the notes of injury on the person of accused made by the Magistrate and the deposition given by the Medical Officer who examined the accused, should it be necessary for the learned Magistrate to transfer the case? Can it be a valid and sufficient ground for transfer of a case? The application is filed with a view to seek an answer to this question. But other questions concerning the protection of basic human rights of citizens also arise in this case. They are -Is there any warrant for assumption that complaints of ill-treatment in police custody is 'mostly' made by habitual offenders? Even if it be so, will a Magistrate be justified in adopting a callous and superficial approach when complaint of custodial violence is made before him? Has the police got any express or implied licence to inflict torture on persons in custody? Is it not that mostly the people belonging to the poor and middle class section of the society (both taken toge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-30-1984
Reported in : 1986CriLJ457
S.L. Talati, J.1. The appellant is Junior Engineer working in Sub-Divisional Office (Telephones) in Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. The learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and also for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one month on each count. The substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing this appeal.2. The prosecution case shortly stated is as under:There is Federal Bank Ltd. which is a scheduled bank and it had a branch in National Chambers on Ashram Road at Ahmedabad. They wanted to shift their premises and go on the opposite side on the same road. The premises to which they were going to shift are situated near Ashok Karnavati Hotel. This was t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-03-1984
Reported in : 1986CriLJ239; (1984)2GLR224
S.L. Talati, J.1. The State by this appeal challenges the acquittal order passed in favour of the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot at Gondal in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1979 on 30-4-1980. The short facts which gave rise to this appeal may be stated as under:One Vashram Meghji had gone to answer the call of nature in the morning on 18-9-1979. He was the resident of village Nani Parbadi which is near Rajkot. While he was returning after answering the call of nature he was attacked by the accused with a knife. There is a motive alleged and the motive alleged is that there was some dispute between the deceased and the accused. According to the prosecution this incident was witnessed by three persons viz. P.W. 2, Vallabhdas Exh. 10, P.W. 3, Lakha Exh. 11 and P.W. 12 Kalaben Exh. 32. According to the prosecution because of the attack by knife ultimately Vashram Meghji fell down somewhere on the road near the house ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-03-1984
Reported in : (1984)2GLR795
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners have come for quashing the process issued against them for offence punishable under Section 500 (defamation) of the complainant. The complainant is a partnership firm and on behalf of the firm the Manager as representing the firm, has filed the complaint against the four petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company, No. 2 is its Manager, No. 3 is its Managing Director and No. 4 is Director.2. It is alleged in the complaint that an agreement was entered into between the complainant firm and accused No. 1 company whereby accused No. 1 was appointed sole selling agent of the complainant's products on the terms and conditions embodied in the agreement. According to the complaint as the accused company did not act as per the terms and conditions stated in the said agreement and did not work to the complainant's satisfaction, the said agreement was terminated. It is further alleged that by such termination the accused felt aggrieved and therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-06-1984
Reported in : (1984)2GLR964
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present revision application is filed by the petitioner, original accused, against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahuva for the offence punishable under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The short facts of the case may be stated as under:The present petitioner, at the relevant time was serving as police constable at Mahuva Police Station. The petitioner went to Shivshakti Rajputana Lodge in the evening of February 21, 1979. One Tejumal Asandas was serving in the said lodge. The said lodge belongs to one Sevakmal Tulsidas Sindhi. The petitioner, who had gone there along with another person, asked for food and he was given food. He then started asking as to why there was something wrong with the food and then started speaking at random. He also asked for preparation of eggs and that was giv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-07-1984
Reported in : (1984)2GLR897
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-original accused, has filed this petition dated 16th September 1982 with a prayer that the order dated 28th September 1981 passed in Criminal Case No. 602 of 1981 directing the police to make further investigation be quashed and that the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 910 of 1982 started in pursuance of the further investigation also be quashed.2. One Induprasad Mangaldas Kachia had lodged a complaint in respect of one pump having been stolen from his field before the Dholka police. The police investigated the offence and charge-sheeted the petitioner for an offence under Section 379, I.P.C. It appears that the learned Magistrate took cognizance and registered the case as Criminal Case No. 602 of 1981. It also appears that plea of the accused was recorded. On 4th September 1981 the complainant submitted an application to the learned Magistrate pointing out that the police had not made a complete and proper investigation; that the pump was a very he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-17-1984
Reported in : 1985CriLJ96; (1983)2GLR657; (1985)1GLR23
B.K. Mehta, J.1. Whether successive applications for a writ of Habeas Corpus on the same and/or fresh grounds can be filed before the High Court is a moot question which arises in this criminal application. In order to appreciate the contentions which have been urged on behalf of the petitioner-detenu, it is necessary to briefly set out a few facts which are as under :The petitioner has been detained by the order of the State Government dated Mar. 18, 1983 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA'). The petitioner was supplied with the grounds on which the detention order has been made, on the same day in Gujarati as well as in English. It appears that the wife of the petitioner Smt. Manjulaben Ratilal had moved this Court for appropriate writ, order and/or direction, and particularly a writ of or a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus by her Spl....
Tag this Judgment!