Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-21-1987
Reported in : (1987)1GLR608
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. This petition is filed by the original informant whose sister Anita died in suspicious circumstances on 14-9-1985. She was married to Yogeshkumar, respondent No. 1 about four months before the date of her death. She died at her husband's place and the information which was conveyed to the relatives of Anita and others was that she had committed suicide by hanging. No post mortem examination was allowed to be performed. The petitioner's case is that no proper action was taken by the local police; and, therefore, he moved the higher police authorities and thereafter an offence came to be registered at Nadiad Town Police Station against respondents No. 1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A, 201, 176 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 2 is the brother of respondent No. 1; and respondent No. 3 is his sister. Respondent No. 4 is the mother of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 5 is his maternal uncle.2. After completing the investigation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-25-1987
Reported in : (1987)2GLR853
I.C. Bhatt, J.1. This Application has been filed by the petitioners for dismissing the complaint on the ground that there is no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners were the public servants as defined in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and therefore, no prosecution can be initiated against the petitioners without the sanction of the Government of Rajasthan.2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are working as Sales Tax Officers in the Anti-Evasion Branch in the Sales Tax Department of State of Rajasthan, It was alleged that there was large-scale evasion of sales-tax at the Maukhampura Checkpost situate near Sachor, in Rajasthan, on Sachor-Tharad Road and that the checkpost staff had joined hands with the transporters and merchants of Rajasthan and the trucks were entering in Gujarat State illegally from the aforesaid checkpost. By communication dated 19-11-1982 of the Commercial Tax Department, the petitioners were give...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-15-1987
Reported in : 1989CriLJ468; (1987)2GLR942
ORDERM.B. Shah, J.1. The Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Ahmedabad, by the order 12th Jan., 1987 has framed charge against the petitioner (original accused No. 4) and opponents Nos. 3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) and Section 25 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 120B of the I.P.C. In the alternative he has framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Act. Further, in the alternative accused Nos. 2 and 4 are charged for the offences punishable under Section 25 of the Act.2. The petitioner original accused No. 4 has filed this Miscellaneous Criminal Application for quashing and setting aside the charge framed against him and also for releasing him on bail. It is his contention that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 202 of examining all witnesses of the complainant before issuing process and, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-12-1987
Reported in : 1987CriLJ1955
M.B. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Judgment and order dated March 24, 1987 passed by the Designated Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 116 of 1987, rejecting the application for releasing the applicants on bail, the applicants have filed this application under Section 439 and/or 482 of the Cr. P.C. to release them on bail.2. The applicants and other persons are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 324, 323, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as The Terrorist Act'). The incident took place on March 10, 1987. The applicants were arrested on the same day. The applicants filed an application before the Designated Court for releasing them on bail. The Designated Court arrived at the conclusion that prima facie the acts committed by the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-15-1987
Reported in : (1987)2GLR982
M.B. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated March 24, 1987 passed by the Designated Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 116 of 1987, rejecting the application for releasing the applicants on bail, the applicants have filed this application under Section 439 and/or 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to release them on bail.2. The applicants and other persons are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 324, 323, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Terrorist Act'). The incident took place on March 10, 1987. The applicants were arrested on the same day. The applicants filed an application before the Designated Court for releasing them on bail. The Designated Court arrived at the conclusion that prima facie the acts co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-02-1987
Reported in : 1988CriLJ1335; (1987)2GLR1340
D.C. Gheewala, J.1. At about 8.30 p.m. in the town of Sikka on 13th June 1984 a young girl aged about 14 years, totally defenceless, completely unsuspecting, was sitting on the foot-steps of her father's house in the company of her cousin Nilesh and was listening to the radio. Her father was having a flourishing practice as a doctor but she had the misfortune of being endowed with good looks as Mr. D.K. Shah, learned Counsel, appearing for the accused, tells the Court. The accused who comes from surroundings which are not quite congenial to sophisticated and cultured living, had an evil eye on her and some time prior to the incident, the accused had misbehaved with her. Dr. Vasantlal and his wife Rashmiben, as they were more cultured, sophisticated and gentle than the behaviour of the accused under the circumstances warranted only made a complaint to one Daudbhai, who was the head of the community of the accused. It appears that Daudbhai scolded the accused, and the accused was prevent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-28-1987
Reported in : 1988CriLJ1347; (1988)1GLR361
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Criminal Application is to quash the show cause notice dated 16-12-1986, the order of the first respondent, dated 18-4-1987 and the Order of the second respondent, dated 11-6-1987 which are Annexures 'A', 'B' & 'E' respectively. The short facts of this case are that the petitioner herein was externed from the City of Surat and Surat Rural and from the Districts of Bharuch and Bulsar for engaging in the commission of offence involving force and violence punishable under Chapters XII, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. A show cause notice dated 16-12-1986 was issued alleging:(1) that he is involved in 9 cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act, which are pending trial in the court,(2) that he possesses deadly weapons like knife and with the same, he plays mischief with girls, beats for looting things and money and committed offence under Chapters XVI & XVII of the Indian Penal Code and the details of which are as under;(1) He looted Rs. 400/- Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-19-1987
Reported in : 1988CriLJ578; (1987)2GLR1219
ORDERP.M. Chauhan, J.1. This Miscellaneous Criminal Application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is filed by the petitioners (original accused) challenging the Order dated 9-11-1984 in M. Enquiry Case No. 31 of 1984 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar, directing Police Sub-Inspector, Wadhwan, to investigate the complaint under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code and submit the report.2. It transpires that the learned Magistrate on receiving the complaint had not examined the complainant before him under Section 200 or 202 of the Code and had not taken the cognizance of the offence on the complaint and directed the Police to investigate under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code.3. Opponent No, 1 filed the complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar, against the petitioners, contending that petitioner 1, opponent 1, Prabhashanker Manilal Pandya and Sushilakumari Natvars...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-19-1987
Reported in : (1987)2GLR1152
P.M. Chauhan, J.1. In all the three Miscellaneous Criminal Applications identical questions of law and fact are involved, and the parties are same and, therefore, they are disposed of by common judgment.2. Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 158 of 1985 arises out of the order in Criminal Case No. 1612 of 1984, Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 159 of 1985 arises out of the order in Criminal Case No. 1613 of 1984, and Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 160 of 1985 arises out of the order in Criminal Case No. 1614 of 1984, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Ahmedabad, issuing process for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner on the complaint filed by opponent No. 2 Hitendrabhai Vadibhai Kapasi, the Accountant of Parekh Decorators.3. Opponent No. 2, the Accountant of Parekh Decorators, filed the complaint contending that he is serving as Accountant in Parekh Decorators and has no personal knowledge about ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-26-1987
Reported in : (1987)2GLR1265
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. In aforesaid revision applications a common point has arisen and, therefore, they are dealt with together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. As the facts are also common it is not necessary to state facts of each case. The short facts are that the complainant-Provident Fund Inspector had filed various complaints against the accused on the allegation that they have failed to pay contributions as stated in the complaints within the prescribed period and have committed offences punishable under Sections 14-A/14(1)(A) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension Act, 1952 read with para 76 of the E.P.F. Scheme, 1952. The said complaints were filed after obtaining necessary sanction from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.3. In the said complaints the accused came out with an application stating that the complaints are time-barred. On behalf of the prosecution it was contended that the offence is a continuing offence and, therefore, the question of li...
Tag this Judgment!