Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1956CriLJ750
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision by the counter petitioner in M. C. No. 6 of 1954 on the file of the District Magistrate (Judicial), Vellore, against the order asking him to execute a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour under Section 110 (e) and (if), Criminal P.C. The petitioner, herein was the counter-petitioner in the trial Court. He is said to be a graduate. Proceedings were instituted against him for taking a bond under Section 110 (e) and (f). Criminal P.C.The learned Trial Magistrate found that a case has been made out and directed, the accused to give security on his own bond for Rs. 1000 with two sureties each for a like amount to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. He found that a case has been made out both under Clause (e) and Clause (f) of Section 110, Criminal P.C.But on appeal the Sessions Judge held that no satisfactory case has been made out for action under Clause (e) of Section 110, Criminal P.C. but the evidence clearly disclosed tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1957CriLJ208
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Criminal Appeal No. 65/54 setting aside the conviction and sentence passed on the respondent-accused by the learned City Magistrate, Mysore, in C. C. No. 2635/53 and directing a re-trial. 2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows: The respondent was the accused in C. C. 2635/53 on the file of the learned City Magistrate Mysore, and he was convicted of offences under Ss. 482 and 420, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months for the offence under Section 482, I P C and simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 420, I. P. C. The respondent-accused appealed against this judgment, and the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the case for retrial. As against tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1956CriLJ904
ORDERPadmanabhiah, J.1. This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-accused against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mercara, in Criminal Appeal No. 12/1953. confirming that of the learned Munsiff and) First Class Magistrate, Mercara, in C. C. No. 295/1954, convicting him of an offence under Section 243, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous- Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows:3. The accused was charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 243,1.P.C. in the Court of the learned Munsiff and First Class Magistrate, Mercara, and the case for the prosecution was that on 23-11-53 the accused was found in fraudulent possession of four counterfeit India Government Rupee coins of 1947 pattern having known at the time he became possessed of them that they were counterfeit and that he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1957CriLJ455
Venkataramaiya, C.J.1. In this application filed under Section 501-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, legality of the disposal of a petition previously filed under the same section by my learned predecessor is challenged on the ground, that he had no jurisdiction to deal with it sitting alone. The point raised is novel, even as the circumstances relating to it are unusual. The order is attacked by the learned Advocate-General as being one passed in exercise of power not vested by law in a Judge acting singly.2. The genesis of the case is that on a charge sheet presented by the Police certain persons were prosecuted for alleged commission of offences in Mysore. Some of the Accused invoked the interference of this Court by means of petitions filed under Sections 439 and 561 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings instituted against them before the Magistrate.The petitions were registered as Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 80 and 103 of 1954 and dealt with for some t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1956CriLJ1417
ORDERPadmanabhiah, J.1. This is a revision petition preferred by the Chairman of the Village Panchayat of Nagathihalli in Nagamangala Taluk against the judgment of the learned First Class Magistrate, Mandya, in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1955, setting aside the conviction of the respondent-accused under Section 168 (1) (a), Mysore Village Panchayats and District Boards Act and the sentence of fine passed on him by the Amildar-Magistrate, Nagamangala, in C. C. No. 4 of 1955-56.2. The case for the petitioner-complainant was that the respondent-accused had built a shed in site No. 51 without obtaining a licence from the Village Panchayat and that he was thereby liable to be prosecuted under Section 169, Mysore Village Panchayats and District Boards Act.The accused pleaded not guilty but the learned Magistrate ultimately convicted the respondent-accused for an offence under Section 168 (1)(a) of the Act and sentenced him as stated above. As against this decision, the respondent appealed and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1957Kant7; AIR1957Mys7; ILR1958KAR773
Venkataramaiya, C.J. 1. The question raised in this case is whether Government has jurisdiction to interfere with an appellate order passed by the State Transport Authority under the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. Petitioner and respondent 2 are plying buses between certain places in Mysore. The Regional Transport Authority prescribed the time at which the bus of each had to start. This was changed perhaps to the advantage of the petitioner in the appeal preferred by him to the State Transport Authority. Respondent 2 thereupon approached Government for modification of this and the order of the State Transport Authority was varied. Petitioner contends that it is illegal and wants the order to be quashed in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226, Constitution of India. 2. It is admitted that the order cannot be assailed according to the rules framed by Government as Rule 276-A expressly provides for an appeal to It against appellate orders of State Transport Authority. This r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1957Kant24; AIR1957Mys24; 1957CriLJ381; ILR1956KAR238
ORDER1. The petitioner has been found guilty of being in possession of counterfeit coins knowing these to be false and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The evidence relating to the coins being found with him has been believed by two Courts and there is no good reason to treat it either as insufficient or unreliable. Nevertheless the conviction is attacked on the ground that the coins are not proved to be counterfeit and that the search conducted by the police to secure these is illegal.The coins were sent to the Mint Master for examination and he communicated the opinion that these were not genuine. This is not sufficient by itself, as contended for the petitioner, in the absence of evidence by the expert before Court to conclude that the coins are false. There is however the testimony of Police Officers and the finding of the Court as also the opinion of assessors to the effect that these were faked ones. The petitioner when his attention was drawn to the evide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1957Kant18; AIR1957Mys18; 1957CriLJ209; ILR1956KAR241
1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-complainant against the order of the learned First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 611 of 1955, acquitting the respondent-accused of an offence under Section 323, I. P. C. 2. The facts that have given rise to this appeal are briefly as under:3. The appellant and respondent were the complainant and accused respectively in C. C. No. 611 of 1955 on the file of the learned First Class Magistrate, Civil Station. The case for the complainant was that he and the accused are two of the Committee Members of the Bangalore Committee of Mysore State Football Association, that a monthly meeting of that Association was held on 4-5-1955 at No. 113. B. Brigade Road, that, when one of the subjects was being discussed, the complainant got up to speak which the accused opposed, that after obtaining the permission of the President the complainant got up to speak, that the accused sprang up and caught hold of the complainant's collar ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1957Kant50; AIR1957Mys50; 1957CriLJ521
Padmanabhiah, J. 1. The present appellant, who was A-1 in Mandya Sessions Case No. 7 of 1955, stands convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years by the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore Division, for an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and the case for the prosecution was that be (appellant-accused) on the night of 21-1-1955 assaulted his co-brother Manche Gowda alias Kenge Gowda with an axe M. O. 1 at Mullahalli and Malavalli Taluk and that he thus caused grievous hurt to the deceased punishable under Section 326, I. P. C. 2. Along with the appellant, there were 10 other persons who were also arraigned as accused, the case against them being that they intentionally caused the death of the said Manehegowda alias Kenge Gowda in furtherance of their common intention and that they thereby committed an offence under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 34, I. P. C. Accused 2 to 11 have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1957Kant21; AIR1957Mys21; 1957CriLJ210
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned City Magistrate, Bangalore, in Cri. Misc. no. 131 of 1955, holding that the respondent-first party was entitled to remain in possession of the disputed property until evicted therefrom in due course of law.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows: Proceedings were started by the police under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Cri. Mis. No. 131/55 on the file of the learned City Magistrate, Bangalore, tn connection with a dispute between the petitioner-2nd party and the respondent-1st party in relation to a strip of land lying between premises No. 3 belonging to the petitioner and No. 4 belonging to the respondent in Miller Road, Civil Station, Bangalore.The learned Magistrate enquired into the matter and held that there was no dispute with respect to the property in question and that there was no likelihood of any breach of the peace and observed that...
Tag this Judgment!