Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-06-1997
Reported in : 1998CriLJ463
K.J. Vaidya, J. 1. Petitioner by this Misc. Criminal Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has moved this Court, inter alia, praying for quashing and setting aside the proceedings by way of Criminal Case No. 66/91 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, initiated pursuant to the complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC.2. Facts and circumstances in brief leading to filing of this petition. The respondent. No. 3 Dhirubhai Shambhubhai Kakadia filed a complaint against the petitioner-Arvindbhai R. Patel for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506(2) of IPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused had developed friendly relations with him and had borrowed Rs. 90,000/- from him in the year 1988, which he badly needed for purchasing the building material in carrying forward hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-06-1997
Reported in : (1997)2GLR1572
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. Petitioner by this Misc. Criminal Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has moved this Court, inter alia, praying for quashing and setting aside the proceedings by way of Criminal Case No. 66 of 1991 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, initiated pursuant to the complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 of I.P.C.2. Facts and circumstances in brief leading to filing of this petition: The respondent No. 3 Dhirubhai Shambhubhai Kakadia filed a complaint against the petitioner-Arvindbhai R. Patel for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506(2) of I.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused had developed friendly relations with him and had borrowed Rs. 90,000/- from him in the year 1988, which he badly needed for purchasing the building material in carrying fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-07-1997
Reported in : [1999]95CompCas280(Guj); (1997)2GLR1191
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. 'Whether in cases wherein the allegations made in the complaint filed by a payee of the cheque against the drawer under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, also further disclose the material ingredients which prima facie do constitute an offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1060, the court to which such a complaint is presented for taking the cognizance of offence, should confine itself merely to issue process under section 138 of the Act, or secondly whether under such circumstances it is equally the duty of the court also to see that along with the process to be issued for the alleged offence under section 138 of the Act, it also issues process under section 420 of the Code against the accused ?' 2. Respondent No. 1, Dipak Chimanlal Patel - Jigar Engineering Industries, GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad, filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 7, Ahmedabad, against the petitioners Dipendra G. Choksi and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-07-1997
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD(Cri)300; 1998CriLJ559
ORDERK.J. Vaidya, J.1. The petitioner by this Misc. Criminal Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has moved this Court inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside the process issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar, in Criminal Case No. 4327/92, pursuant to the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. Perused the complaint and the memo of the petition. The petitioner has raised the following contentions in the petition :(1) That the complaint is premature as it has been filed before one day before the cause of action arose. According to the petitioner, no prosecution can lie within the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the impugned notice. In the instant case, the impugned notice was served on the petitioner on 1 -9-1992, and in that view of the matter, no complaint could have been filed before 17-9-1992.(2) That the cheque...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-07-1997
Reported in : (1997)1GLR434
N.N. Mathur, J.1. I have heard Mr. B.S. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Patel has argued the matter at great length. In support of his contention, he has read before me paras 6, 8 and 9 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar reported in : 1980CriLJ426 . After having sensed the mood of the Court, the learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this Criminal Revision Application with a view to approach the learned Sessions Judge. Such sort of withdrawal has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. I.P. Kalpatri : 1996CriLJ1127 . In view of this, I decline permission to withdraw this Criminal Revision Application.2. This Criminal Revision Application has been directed against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara dated 4-1-1997 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1375 of 1996. The petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:(a) Your Lords...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-08-1997
Reported in : 1998CriLJ580; (1997)2GLR743
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. 'What indeed is the first hand elementary duty of the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offence under section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, before issuing process to the accused Is he supposed to be merely a post-box or post-office to have the rubber stamped order ready for issuing process to the accused moment the complaint is filed before him,as done in the instant case' OR is he required to apply his mind to the allegations made in complaint, examine them and further be quite careful and circumspect rather discreet before issuing the process unerringly bearing in mind the consequential physical, mental and financial hardship and inconvenience that may entail as a result of hasty and mechanical faulty issuance of the process/s against the accused This, in short, is the most material question arising for consideration in this Misc. Criminal Application because these days unfortunately it is found that in many such cases processes are issue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-09-1997
Reported in : [1998]230ITR708(Guj)
A.N. Divecha, J. 1. All these appeals are directed against the common judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mehsana on February 25, 1994, in Criminal Cases Nos. 998 of 1990 to 1003 of 1990 and 5343 of 1990 to 5359 of 1990. Thereby, the learned trial magistrate acquitted respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 3 of the offences punishable under section 276B read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for brief). 2. The facts giving rise to these appeals move in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 1 was a partnership firm at the relevant time and it obtained a contract from the Gujarat Housing Board (the Board for convenience) some time in 1983 for construction of houses for the Board. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were its partners at the relevant time. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein entrusted the work of constructing houses to three firms by the names of Uma Construction Company, Jitendra Construction Company and Bhagwati Construction Compa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-09-1997
Reported in : 1997CriLJ3388; II(1998)DMC286
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. 'Whether in a Criminal Revision Application challenging the impugned order of maintenance awarded to wife and children, the Sessions Court was justified in reappreciating the evidence as if sitting in appeal and thereby quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be without jurisdiction and/or in any way perverse beyond the ken of ordinary prudence ?' This question arises in the background of the fact-situation as stated thereunder :1.1 The petitioner-Suhana is a wife of the respondent No. 1 Sikandarkhan B. Nagori serving as S.T. Driver, residing at Bayad. On the alleged ground that her husband respondent No. 1 was beating and ill-treating her and consequently on her leaving the house residing at the parental home, was also further neglecting to maintain her and her two minor children - Asiya aged about 2 years and Shakila aged about 6 years, the petitioner filed an application for maintenance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-09-1997
Reported in : 1997CriLJ3473; (1997)2GLR604
ORDERK.J. Vidya, J.1. Petitioners by this Misc. Criminal Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, have moved this Court inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside 1997 Cri. L. J./218 IX the order dated 17-8-1991, passed by the learned JMFC Kadi, in Criminal Case No. 579/90, revoking the earlier order of granting exemption to the accused and issuing non-bailable warrants against them.2. To state few relevant facts:-Respondent No. 1 Dahyabhai Kalubhai Solanki, Assistant Law Officer, Gujarat Pollution! Control Board, Ahmedabad, filed a complaint on 21-4-1990, before the learned JMFC Kadi against M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Proteins Ltd., situated at Kadi, inter alia alleging that (i) the accused-factory had no facility -- no plant to purify the polluted water; (ii) that the polluted water in turn was discharged in the open land situated nearby; and (iii) that though the application made by the complainant under Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control) Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-09-1997
Reported in : (1998)144CTR(Guj)687
A. N. DIVECHA, J. :All these appeals are directed against the common judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mehsana on 25th February, 1994, in Criminal Cases Nos. 998 of 1990 to 1003 of 1990 and 5343 of 1990 to 5359 of 1990. Thereby, the learned trial magistrate acquitted respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 3 of the offences punishable under s. 276B r/w s. 278B of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act for brief).2. The facts giving rise to these appeals move in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 1 was a partnership firm at the relevant time and it obtained a contract from the Gujarat Housing Board (the Board for convenience) sometime in 1983 for construction of houses for the Board. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were its partners at the relevant time. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein entrusted the work of constructing houses to three firms by the names of Uma Construction Co., Jitendra Construction Co. and Bhagwati Construction Co. They were practically sub-contractors...
Tag this Judgment!