Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE19h DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.24832 OF2022(GM - POLICE) BETWEEN: MR.KULDEEP ADVOCATE AGED ABOUT23YEARS S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR SHETTY RESIDING AT PUTHILA VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K.DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560 001 BY SECRETARY. 2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER PUNJALKATTE POLICE STATION2REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGLAURU 560 001. 3 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 575 001. 4 . SUTHESH K.P., SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUNJALKATTE POLICE STATION D.K. DISTRICT 575 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTIONS TO THE STATE OF KARNATAKA / RES...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant55; AIR1950Mys55
ORDER1. The petitioners in these four petitions are the respondents in R.A. Nos. 104 and 109 of 1947-48. Two civil petitions are filed under Section 151 and Order 41, Rule 21, Civil P.C., praying that the Court may be pleased to set aside the ex parte decree passed respectively in the appeals. Two other petitions C.Ps. Nos. 50 and 49 of 49-50 relate respectively to the above appeals and are filed under Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of the C.P.C., for review of the judgment passed in the above appeals.2. Before discussing the merits of these petitions it is necessary to set out in brief the history of these cases. Before these appeals were posted for hearing, the parties filed an application in or about March 1948 to advance the hearing of the appeals for an early disposal of the same. The appeals were subsequently heard by a Bench consisting of the then Chief Justice and when the arguments were almost concluded, the parties took time with a view to effect a compromise. Later, they w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant21; AIR1950Mys21
ORDER1. On a complaint petition filed by one Venkatamma who is examined as P.W. 2 in the case against the petitioners-accused, the learned Second Magistrate, Bangalore, directed the case to be taken on file and it was accordingly registered as C C No. 812 of 48 49. Amongst other things it was alleged in the complaint that the accused beat and kicked the complainant on 12 2-1949 at about 7.30 p. m. The learned Magistrate tried the case summarily for an offence under Section 323, Penal Code, and found the accused persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 30 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six days. It is against this order the accused have come up in revision before this Court.2. The learned Advocate for the petitioners argued at the outset that the trial Magistrate having failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 342, Criminal P.C., by note examining the accused after prosecution witnesses were further cross-examined by him an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant63; AIR1950Mys63
Balakrishnaiya, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant against whom the respondent plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent as also for ejectment. The defendant pleaded that he had paid rents regularly and was not, therefore, liable to ejected. Both the Courts found against the defendant and awarded a decree for rent as also for possession of the property.2. Sri V. Krishnamurthy on behalf of the appellant contends before this Court that a proper notice contemplated under Section 106, T. P. Act had not been given and, as such, the relief for ejectment ought not to have been granted to the plaintiff, Exhibit B is the notice dated 5th September 1947 in which the plaintiff states:'....you are required to vacate the said schedule houses within one month from the date of receipt of this notice and deliver possession of the same in a proper manner......'Section 106, T.P. Act, lays down that the notice should be served clearly fifteen days before the expiry of and ending with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant44; AIR1950Mys44
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. The petitioner who has been committed to the Court of Session for trial on a charge under Section 376, Penal Code, has applied for the commitment being quashed on he ground that there is no legally admissible evidence against him to justify. In accordance with the existing practice of this Court, the petition was posted before a Division Bench. As the Bench was of divided opinion whether the petition is to be allowed or dismissed it has been referred to the Full Bench.2. The case against the petitioner is that he raped a girl of 7 years on the afternoon of 16th February 1949 in his house at Madhugiri. The Magistrate has in the order of commitment referred to the opinion of P.W.8, the lady doctor who examined the girl that she might have been raped, the evidence of P.W.5 that the girl identified the accused as the person who raped her after inducing her by holding out some eatables to go with him to his house, to Ex. P-2 the mahazar recording this and attested by P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant82; AIR1950Mys82
Mallappa, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Principle Sessions Judge, Mysore Division, in Hassan Sessions Case No. 2 of 1949-50 convicting the appellant accused of an offence under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentencing him to death. A reference is also made under Section 374, Criminal P.C. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused, who is a coolie in what is known as Halekere Coffee Estate in Sakalespur Taluk murdered one Kunni alias Kunjapo. The motive for the offence is said to be that the accused's father-in-law refused to give the accused's wife's sister in marriage to him and that it had been settled that she had to marry Kunjapo. 3. The material witnesses, however, are his wife, father-in-law and other relatives who depose to the accused being angry on the refusal of his father-in-law and other relatives who depose to the accused being angry on the refusal of his father-in-law to give his wife's sister in marriage to him and to his having gone alone with Kun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1951Kant1; AIR1951Mys1
1. This is an appeal against the judgment in Shimoga Sessions Case 3 of 49-50 in which the appellants have been convicted of an offence under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life.2. According to the prosecution case, the accused and others entered, on the night of 13-12-1948, a building known as Tudekoppada Mutt which is at a distance of a few miles from Sagar and committed offences of house-breaking and robbery, in the course of which one Puttasamiah an inmate of the house was murdered. P. W. 9 Shiviah, to whom the Mutt belongs, was residing in it with the other members of his family and a few relatives had also come in connection with some ceremony. On the night of 13-12-1948, P. W. 9 Shiviah and some of the members of his family had gone to Sagar to see a circus. He and one Karibasiah remained at Sagar, while the other members of the family returned to the Mutt. Early in the morning, his son-in-law Lingamurti came to Sagar and told him about the house-br...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1951Kant33; AIR1951Mys33
ORDERBalakrishnaiya, J. 1. The petitioner is accused 2 in Sessions Case No. 9/49-60 who, as accused 3 in Sessions Case No. 8 of 43-50, stood charged for an offence under Section 467, Penal Code. Separate charges were also framed against the second and third accused (in Sessions Case No. 8/49-50) under Section 82, Mysore Registration Act. On a motion by the Public Prosecutor, the charge for the offence under Section 82, Registration Act was kept by for a separate trial, as a joint trial for the offences both under the Penal Code and the Registration Act was considered by the Sessions Judge to be irregular. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Section 467, Penal Code. The charge under Section 82, Registration Act was then taken up for trial in Sessions case No. 9/49-50. The petitioner filed an application under Section 403, Criminal P. C., objecting to the trial on the principle of autrefois acquit, The learned Sessions Judge held that the acquittal under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1953Kant64; AIR1953Mys64
ORDER1. The accused in C. C. No. 264 of 49-50 on the file of the Special 1st Class Magistrate, Sagar, has been proceeded against under Section 355, Penal Code on a private complaint on the allegation that the complainant was shoe beaten causing him dishonour. The accused raised an objection that the present prosecution is barred under S. 403 as he had been already prosecuted for the same offence under Section 56(o) and (q), Mysore Police Act in C. C. 313 of 49-50 which ended in acquittal. The objection was rejected by the learned Magistrate who directed the case to proceed? according to law. It is against that decision that this revision petition is filed.2. It is argued for the petitioner that the offences for which he was prosecuted by the police is substantially the same as the one complained of under Section 355, Penal Code which is not denied to have arisen out of the same transaction and as such the accused should not be tried again for the same offence.3. Section 403(1), Crimina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1951Kant51; AIR1951Mys51; ILR1951KAR370
Mallappa, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment in C. C, 3246 of 48-49 on the file of the Second City Magistrate, Bangalore, acquitting the accused of an offence under Section 25, City of Bangalore Improvement Act of 1945, the operation of which is extended from 18-3-49 to the area in which the respondent's land is situated.2. The Municipal Sub-overseer who has been examined in the case as the first witness for the prosecution has stated that on 23-3-49 the accused was gutting sites marked out by fixing atones. Twenty persons were working on the sites according to this witness. P. W. 2 is the Assistant Engineer, Trust Board. states that when ho went to the place with P. W. 1 the demarcation atones were being fixed. Some sites had been demarcated and some were being demarcated when he went there on 23-3-1949, He saw the accused there but did cot take a statement from him. The case of the accused is that he did mark the sites prior to 18-8-49 on which data the Act was made applicab...
Tag this Judgment!