Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-18-2006
Reported in : (2007)3GLR1918
..... and examination of the body of nayanaben. for that purpose, enquiry was ordered to be conducted under section 176 of the code of civil procedure, 1973 by sub divisional magistrate, savarkundla under overall supervision of the district magistrate, bhavnagar. respondents no. 2 and 3 were ordered to remain personally present in the court with relevant papers and a team of expert doctors was provided for proper examination and report. pursuant to that inquiry under the provisions of section 176 of the cr.p.c., an interim investigation report dated 5.9.1997 ..... was required to be signed by such police officer who concurred therein and the report was required to be forthwith forwarded to the district magistrate or the sdm. admittedly, no such enquiry was made and no report was submitted. the enquiry ordered by this court to be conducted under section 176 of the cr.p.c. with the help of a team of doctors was obviously to ascertain the cause of death and injuries sustained by the deceased apart from the obvious burn injuries. however, the sdm has submitted the afore- ..... officials of police department of state government.10.3 apparently, the sdm has taken pains to delve into the background of family of the petitioner and found it to have criminal background, but jumped at the conclusion that the deceased committed suicide due to guilt and shame as a result of the case under bombay police act under sections 110 and 117. reading the report of the sdm as a whole, it has not only travelled far .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-09-2006
Reported in : 2006CriLJ3180; (2006)3GLR2043
K.A. Puj, J.1. Criminal Misc. Application No. 5389 of 2005 is filed by Dr. Anil K. Khandelwal and 14 others under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying for quashing and setting aside the Criminal Complaint Inquiry No. 14 of 2005 lodged by the complainant, namely, Shri Maksud Saiyed, Director of Nagami Nicotine Pvt. Ltd., in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, for the offences punishable under Sections 107, 120-B, 177, 181, 191, 192, 200, 209, 405, 409, 415, 420, 425, 463, 464, 468, 470, 471, 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and which has been registered as M Case No. 7/2005 at Sayajiganj Police Station pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, dated 28.2.2005 forwarding the Criminal Complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The case of the complainant / present respondent is that Dena Bank floated a public issue of 8 crores equity shares of Rs. 10/- each for cash at a premium of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-13-2006
Reported in : (2006)2GLR925
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Above numbered two appeals, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are directed against judgment dated July 26, 2002 rendered by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 153 of 2001, by which the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2002, who was original accused No. 1 as well as two appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 759 of 2002, who were original accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Sessions Case No. 153 of 2001 are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 21 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act for short) and each sentenced to RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), in default RI for 2 years.2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:Mr. Krishnakumarsinh Chandrakumarsinh Chudasama, who was then Police Inspector, Anti-Terrorist Squad, was on duty in his office in the morning of July 19, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-18-2006
Reported in : (2006)2GLR1186
J.R. Vora, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chimay Gandhi for the applicant and learned APP Mr. K.C. Shah for the respondent State. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi states that the parties being husband and wife, they have settled the matter before Permanent Lok Adalat on 26.4.2002 and the order passed on that day by Conciliators Mr. Justice P.M. Chauhan (Retd) and Mr. Navin Pahwa, Advocate, is placed on record. According to this order, the parties have arrived at settlement with love and affection because of the intervention of the leading persons and relatives. The Conciliators in the said order expressed request to take lenient view in this Criminal Revision Application.3. As per the facts of the case, wife of the present applicant preferred one First Information Report against present applicant and other five persons. On filing of the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Khedbrahma, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 561 of 1993, after recording of the evidence and hear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-27-2006
Reported in : (2006)1GLR816
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. Criminal Confirmation Case No. 3 of 2005 arises pursuant to submission of the proceedings of Atrocity Criminal Case No. 3 of 2003 made under Section 366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) by the learned Special Judge, Court No. 10, Special City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, who, by his judgment and order dated 16.5.2005, has sentenced respondent - Satish alias Kalu alias Hathoda ('the accused' for short) to death for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) whereas Criminal Appeal No. 1176 of 2005 filed under Section 374(2) of the Code by the accused from the jail is also directed against the judgment and order dated 16.5.2005 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Court No. 10, Special City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 3 of 2003 by which the appellant/accused is convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 404 of the IPC and senten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-01-2006
Reported in : (2006)3GLR2458
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard. The Court is informed that the police has now filed charge-sheet. It is prayed for by the petitioner that looking to the nature of injury found on the body of person injured, namely Zahir Abbas, the police was required to register the offence punishable under Sections. 307 and 326 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code mentioned in the complaint registered with Bavla Police Station. The learned A.P.P., is not sure whether the police has charge-sheeted the accused persons for such offences or whether the accused have been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 307 and/or 326 of the Indian Penal Code or not.2. In response to the query raised by the Court, Ms. Saita Raju, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, has fairly submitted that as per the instructions received by her, the police has not charge-sheeted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 and/or 326 of the Indian Penal Code. One copy of the injury cert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-07-2006
Reported in : 2006CriLJ4443
R.P. Dholakia, J.1. The appellants have challenged their conviction under Section 302 read with Sections 149, 147 and 148 of the I.P. Code as well as the sentence of imprisonment for life in respect of offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 and imprisonment for a period of one year in respect of the offence under Sections 147 and 148, I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- each, in default, further imprisonment for a period of three months. The appellant No. 2 has also challenged his further conviction under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code as well as the sentence of imprisonment for a further period of one year and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, further imprisonment for a period of three months recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1997, in the present appeal which is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, can be stated as follows:2.1 The incident in question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-08-2006
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2392
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. The acquittal of the Respondent (the accused for short) of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad vide judgment and order dated 16.12.1985 in Sessions Case No. 74 of 1985 is the subject matter of challenge in the instant Appeal which is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) for short by the Appellant - the State of Gujarat.2. The facts emerging from the record of the case and more particularly as disclosed in the FIR and unfolded during the trial are as under:2.1 Deceased Ahmadmiya Rasulmiya (the deceased for short) had two fields in the village Sojali. In one field he constructed a hut and was residing there. His another field was know as SKothiwala in which the millet crop was standing on the date of the incident. On the Eastern side of the said field, there was the field of the accused - Jamabhai Ramabhai and there was a hed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-15-2006
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2437
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. Applicants are before this Court seeking relief that, Sthe complaint filed by the respondents herein against the petitioners, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'A' hereto and the order passed thereon by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad, be quashed and/or be set aside;.2. Mr. Arun H. Mehta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the present case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in other similar matters being Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 3777, 3778 and 3779 of 1993 decided by this Court (Coram: K.J. Vaidya, J.) by judgment and order dated 17.12.1994. He submitted that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed against the present applicants and on that short ground, by following the reasonings of this Court in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.12.1994, the present application be allowed and the complaint be quashed.3. Mrs. Manisha L. Shah, the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-22-2006
Reported in : (2007)1GLR796
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Pramod Bhagwan Nayak, petitioner original detenu, has filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the order dated 23-8-2005 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, Surat, respondent No. 2 herein. The petition was filed before this Court on 13-10-2005. When the matter was placed for hearing on 21-10-2005, this Court has issued rule. On behalf of the respondents Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned A.G.P., appears. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. Mr. Amrish Pandya, learned Advocate, appears on behalf of Ms. Krishna U. Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioner. He has invited my attention to the order of detention dated 23-8-2005 in which the authority has passed order under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.A.S.A. Act'). He has also invited my attention to the order of committal dated 23-10-2005 whereby the petitioner has been sent to ...
Tag this Judgment!