Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-01-1988
Reported in : 1989CriLJ501; (1989)1GLR217
ORDERR.A. Mehta, J.1. The State is aggrieved by the orders of both the lower Courts refusing remand of the opponents to the police custody. Hence this petition is invoking Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. The learned Counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that virtually this is a second revision application which is expressly barred under Section 397(3) of the Code, because the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had passed an order refusing remand to police custody and that order was challenged by the State by filing a revision application to the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad and therefore no further application by the same person (State) can be entertained and is not maintainable. The learned Counsel for the State submitted that what is barred is a second revision application under Section 397 of the Code and a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking constitutional power of the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-06-1988
Reported in : 1989CriLJ1945; (1988)2GLR199
ORDERR.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner has been concurrently found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304A of I.P.C. for causing death of a ten year old girl by rash and negligent act of driving a motor bus. He-has been awarded R.I, for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, R.I. for two months.2. This matter was argued at length by the learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.M. Shah. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2277 of 1987 through Advocate Mr. H. M. Chinoy and that application is really speaking an application in support of the revision application elaborating grounds and arguments. There is no independent or substantive prayer which is not covered by the revision application. Therefore, both these applications are heard and disposed of together.3. The incident had occurred on 28-2-1984 in the afternoon at about 5-00 p.m. on the National Highway between Ahmedabad and Baroda on the outskirt of village Boriyavi. The acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-06-1988
Reported in : 1(1989)ACC383; (1988)2GLR995
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner has been concurrently found guilty of the offence punishable Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code for causing death of a ten-year-old girl by rash and negligent act of driving a motor bus. He has been awarded R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default R.I. for two months.2. This matter was argued at length by the learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S.M. Shah. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2277 of 1987 through advocate Mr H.M. Chinoy and that application is really speaking an application in support of the revision application elaborating grounds and arguments. There is no independent or substantive prayer which is not covered by the revision application. Therefore, both these applications are heard and disposed of together.3. The incident had occurred on 28 2-1984 in the afternoon at about 5.00 p.m. on the National Highway between Ahmedabad and Baroda on the outskirts of village Boriyavi. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-18-1988
Reported in : AIR1988Guj141; (1988)1GLR452
ORDER1. In these petitions the questions which arise for determination are :(1) Whether by the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the'MuslimWomen Act', the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, under S. 125 of the Criminal P. C. ordering the husband to ppy maintenance to the wife are nullif ied? (2) Whether the Muslim Women Act takes away the rights which are conferred upon the divorced women under the Personal Law as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum : 1985CriLJ875 (3) Whether the Muslim Women Act provides that a divorced woman is entitled to have the maintenance only during the iddat period i.e. only for the iddat period? As these questions are of importance, a number of learned advocates intervened in the matter and they ably rendered assistance.2. For deciding the aforesaid questions it would be necessary to refer to the preamble of the Act which re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-22-1988
Reported in : 1989CriLJ1898; (1988)2GLR1175
ORDERR.A. Mehta, J.1. Both these applications are by the same petitioner for substantially same relief. The petitioner is the original complainant and brother of deceased Babiben, wife of one Kanubhai/Mafatlal Patel, respondent No. 1 in Cr. Misc. Application No. 2095/87. The other respondents are the family members of the husband and in-laws of the deceased It is not in dispute that this is a case of unnatural death of Babiben. The complainant petitioner suspects that his sister has been murdered by the respondents accused He gave written complaint to Chanasma police station which is annexure-A to the Special Criminal Application. The incident had taken place at about 9-00 p.m. on 8-8-1987. The written complaint was given on 10-8-1987. However, that was not recorded as FIR. Therein it was stated that the in-laws had done his sister to death.(matter in vernacular omitted - Ed.)However, on the next day i.e. on 11-8-1987, a statement of the complainant was recorded which has been register...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-01-1988
Reported in : (1988)2GLR965
M.B. Shah, J.1. In these cases it seems that either the learned Magistrate is not aware of the seriousness of the offence, the law laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court in various decisions and is not mindful of the fact that under the provisions of law it was his duty to administer the law as per the dictates of the Parliament and to impose minimum sentence provided under the Act. It is high time that the lower Judiciary should realize that it is their duty to follow the law laid down by this Court in various decisions and to implement them.2. From the shop owned by opponent No. 1 known as 'Anil Kirana Stores' at Sevalia of Thasra Taluka, the Food Inspector purchased a sample of turmeric powder in presence of panchas on 1-5-1984 at about 5-30 p.m. The sample was taken from packed tin. Opponent No. 1 produced a bill showing that the said turmeric powder was purchased from opponent No. 4. Opponents Nos. 2, 3 & 5 are the partners of the firm-opponent No. 4. The complaint w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-08-1988
Reported in : (1988)1GLR580
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein has come forward with the present Special Criminal Application for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing and setting aside the order of externment dt. 30-7-1987 passed against him. By an order dt. 17-10-1987 the said order was confirmed in appeal. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner herein on 30-1-1987 alleging the following activities:2. On 12-7-1985, at about 22-15 hours, at the Malekwadi Navsari Bazar, a crowd of about 100 persons of Hindu and Muslim community had gathered and were exchanging stones and sodawater bottles and in the said incident from the side of Hindu community the petitioner principal person and his associates and some other 50 persons were instigating the residents of the Malekwadi in the name of religion and were further instigating to throw stones and to take part in the incident. The information about the said incident reached the local police in ti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-15-1988
Reported in : (1988)2GLR981
M.B. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 3rd September, 1984 passed by the Sessions Judge, Banaskantha District at Palanpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1984, the petitioner-accused has filed this revision application.2. It was the prosecution case that the petitioner was driving one bus belonging to the Agricultural University, Dantiwada, on 9-9-1981 at about 7-30 p.m. He was going from Palanpur to Dantiwada. When he came near village Chadotar on the Highway, two persons were found walking ahead of him on the edge of the tar road. It is the prosecution version that he was driving the bus rashly and negligently. He knocked down one person named Vaghari Ujambhai Punjabhai who died on the spot. The complaint was filed by Virabhai Mohanbhai at about 8-30 a. m. at the police station. After die investigation the accused was charge-sheeted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur. The case was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palanpur. Af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-02-1988
Reported in : (1988)2GLR1073
M.B. Shah, J.1. This group of applications are filed for cancellation of bail granted by Mr. I.H. Parikh, Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh.2. I has been pointed out in this group of applications that Mr. Shah, Additional Sessions Judge, has either ignored the order passed by his colleague i.e. another Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application by giving some irrelevant reasons. In one case he has ignored the order passed by this High Court rejecting the bail applica-tion. He has narrated the criteria laid down by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but he has not applied the same to the facts of the case or ignored the facts of the case.3. The particulars of the cases decided by this judgment wherein all the accused are involved in offences punishable under Section 302 and/or other sections and who are released on bail by Mr. I.H. Shah, Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, are tabularized as under: ________________________________________________________...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-15-1988
Reported in : (1988)2GLR1282
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. The appellant herein was the defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 62 of 1984. The said suit was for granting mandatory injunction requiring the appellant herein to remove the construction he has put in before filing of the suit and for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from putting any further construction and also restraining the appellant from obstructing the respondent herein from putting construction on the suit plan.2. It is the case of the respondent herein that the plot on which the appellant has put in construction was allotted to him by the Taluka Development Officer, Dhandhuka and that inspite of that the appellant herein had. constructed a wall in that plot. By application Exh. 5 in that said suit the respondent herein applied for temporary injunction restraining the appellant herein from putting any construction and also restraining him from obstructing the respondent herein in putting construction over the suit plot. On that Exh. 5, ...
Tag this Judgment!