Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-12-1990
Reported in : 1991CriLJ2864; (1990)1GLR599
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The petitioner-detenu has filed this hebeas corpus petition with a prayer that the detention order (Annexure-A to the petition) passed against him by the detaining authority be set aside and that the respondents be directed to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith.2. The short facts of the case can be stated as under:3. The petitioner is detained by the order dated 16-3-1989 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Baroda City which has been passed on his being satisfied that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Baroda City, it is necessary to do so. Said order is passed in exercise of the powers conferred on the detaining authority under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985. The petitioner is ordered to be detained in Special Jail, Bhuj as a Class II detenu as per order (Annex B to the petition). The petitioner is also served with the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-22-1990
Reported in : 1991CriLJ1483; (1990)2GLR923
P.M. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant Suraj-mal Kanaiyalal Soni has challenged the conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vadodara for the offence punishable Under Section 18, of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycho-tropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act) and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for three years, for being in illegal and unauthorised possession of 9 Kgs. 775 gms. opium worth Rs. 19,550/- at 10-00 p.m. on march 7, 1988 at Bagikhana Road, Vadodara, on various factual and legal grounds that the opium was not recovered from the appellant and was recovered from other persons but they were allowed to go and the appellant is falsely implicated and that the various mandatory procedural provisions specified in Chapter V, N.D.P.S. Act are not complied with, which has prejudiced the appellant and has resulted into miscarriage of justice requiring the setting aside of the convicti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-22-1990
Reported in : (1990)2GLR947
P.M. Chauhan, J.1. Can a person, in possession and transporting in an autorickshaw, without any passenger in it, in a public place 105.700 kgs., of Cannabis Sativa (charas), worth Rs. 5,29,000/-, be held to be in unconcious possession or without knowledge of the contents in the packets Were the provisions of Section 42, Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.D.P.S. Act') required to be followed or the provisions under Section 43 of the N.D.P.S. Act are applicable in case of seizure in public place Are provisions of Chapter V, N.D.P.S. Act mandatory, the non-compliance of which will vitiate investigation, trial or conviction ipso facto or miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the accused required to be established These are some of the main points requiring consideration in this acquittal appeal preferred by the State against the respondent.2. Additional City Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence held that it is amply made out from t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-09-1990
Reported in : 1991CriLJ1266; (1990)1GLR498
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted for offence punishable Under Section 302 of I.P. Code by the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bombay as per judgment and order dated October 16, 1975. Initially he was sentenced to death by the trial court. However, on reference to the High Court, the sentence has been modified to that of R.I. for life. On this point there is no dispute. The petitioner-prisoner remained in Yaravada Jail in the state of Maharashtra till some time in July, 1977. In the month of July 1977, he has been transferred to Sabarmati Central Prison, Ahmedabad. Since then he is undergoing imprisonment in the Sabarmati Central Prison.2. During the period of his imprisonment in Sabarmati Central Prison, he has enjoyed parole leave on several occasions from 1979 to 1988. On April 8, 1985, he was ordered to be released on parole for a period of seven days. He surrendered late by about 116 days. He was tried for the jail offence inasmuch as late surrender is a jail offe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-09-1990
Reported in : (1990)1GLR617
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present petition is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for bail.2. Short facts are that on 5-4-1989 when the present petitioner was on the Platform No. 2 of vapi Railway Station, he was arrested on suspicion by Valsad Railway Police. The informant had suspected the petitioner and had asked certain questions, which were not replied by the petitioner properly and therefore, the informant checked the bag of the petitioner from which very strong smell was coming out and he found Brown Sugar in that bag. It appears that subsequently the petitioner was brought to Valsad Railway Police Station and produced before the Head Constable Ramchandra Ragho where the panchas were called and the search of the petitioner was taken in the presence of panchas. It appears that near about 1 Kg. Heroin was found and the contraband was sealed and seized after 50 grams was taken one for sample and seized as per the panchnama. Thereafter the samples of contraband artic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-13-1990
Reported in : I(1991)DMC427; (1990)1GLR623
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for releasing the petitioner-accused on bail. The offence against him is registered, being C.R. No. 242 of 1989, at Kadi Town Police Station for offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short facts of the prosecution case can be stated as under :Shila, who was the wife of the petitioner, had a quarrel with her mother-in-law and the present petitioner her husband at 12-00 noon on the day of the incident i.e. 28-9-1989. That after the quarrel, at about 5.30 p.m. present petitioner had gone out for business with a larry. Shila was alone in the room and the mother-in-law and paternal aunt were sitting outside the room. Shilaben put kerosene on her body and got burnt. Shilaben was removed to the Hospital for treatment, where she has lodged the complaint, stating the above facts.3. It may be stated that in this matter, formerly, Misc. Criminal Application No. 2063 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-16-1990
Reported in : 1991CriLJ2801; (1990)2GLR1196
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The facts leading to this criminal miscellaneous application be briefly stated. In sessions case No. 91 of 1984 one Ramji Devasi Bhil alias Chakla was also arraigned as accused along with other five accused. All of them were charged for offence punishable Under Section 302 read with Sections 147, 148 & 149 of I.P.C. and for offence Under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Alternatively they were charged for offence punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and also for offence punishable Under Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act. It was alleged that on July 8, 1984 at about 1-30 p.m. at village Chalva Taluka Deodar, in the field of one Rabari Malabhai all the accused had assembled in unlawful assembly and had caused injuries to one Kanjibhai Bhanabhai by means of deadly weapons, like 'katar' (a crescent snapped weapon) and sticks. It was also alternatively alleged that all the accused had common intention of causing death of deceased Kanjibhai ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-20-1990
Reported in : 1991CriLJ2219; (1990)2GLR1202
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The appellant-accused was charged with the offence of killing her own four children namely, daughter Mina, aged 11 years; son Vinod, 5 years; another son Dilip, aged 3 years and infant daughter Sonal, aged about 8 months. The Trial Court, by its judgment and order dated 29th May 1984, held her guilty of offence of causing murders of all the four children, convicted her Under Section 302 of IPC and ordered to undergo R.I. for life and pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of Simple Inprisonment for 15 days. It is against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence the appellant-accused has preferred this appeal.2. It was the prosecution case that on August 7, 1983 between 12-00 to 12-30 noon time, the accused, was in her house situated in Old Krishnapura area of village Unjha, and there, in the house itself she intentionally inflicted axe blows on the head portions of four children and caused their unnatural death. The prosecution case as disclosed from the record ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-07-1990
Reported in : (1990)2GLR1058
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. In the aforesaid petitions the petitioners are members of the staff working in the subordinate Courts and this Court as also practising Advocates. The petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the results at the Elimination Test held on 30-9-1984 by the Gujarat Public Service Commission, respondent No. 1 for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, in Gujarat Judicial Service Class-II (Junior Branch) and for a further direction that the petitioners be called for interviews to be held for appointment to the said post and also for other incidental and ancillary orders. They have also sought for prayer directing the first respondent to permit rechecking the papers of the petitioners in the Elimination Test held on 30-9-1984 for the post of Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, in the Gujarat Judicial Service Class-II (Junior Branch) for the purpose of ascertaining as to wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-26-1990
Reported in : I(1991)DMC280; (1990)2GLR996
J.U. Mehta, J.1. Rule Mr. S.T. Mehta, Additional Public Prosecutor appears and waives service of rule for the State.2. The petitioner who is the original opponent in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 132 of 1988 has approached this Court challenging the order dated 26-9-1988 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amreli, who issued a warrant against the present petitioner to recover the amount of maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- by attaching the movable property and if the said amount could not be recovered, from that, then he ordered to arrest the present petitioner and to produre him before the Court.3. Notice was issued to respondent No. 1 who is the wife and also to the State. Respondent No. 1 remained present in person before this Court and Mr. S.T. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State waived service of notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 1 submitted that she has nothing to say in the matter. In view of the said statement made by respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!