Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-04-1952
Reported in : AIR1952Kant77; AIR1952Mys77
ORDER1. The petitioner is the first party in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 1942-43, filed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special First Class Magistrate, Madhugiri. The learned Magistrate being unable to decide which of the party was in possession of the property directed under Section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that attachment to continue and appointed the Amildar, Madhugiri to take possession as the Receiver.2. On 27-6-1946, the respondents presented an application on behalf of the second party members from which this revision petition arises praying that the attachment be withdrawn and the Receiver be directed not to deal with the property. The petitioner objected on the ground that the application is not maintainable as the present respondents were not parties to the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate overruled the objection and ordered that the attachment be withdrawn by acce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-27-1952
Reported in : AIR1952Kant123; AIR1952Mys123
ORDER1. In C. C. No. 123 of 1943-49 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate, Chickballapur, the respondent was convicted for an offence under section 500, I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. On appeal, the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore, acquitted the accused on the ground that no case is made out against him. The complainant has preferred this revision petition against that order.2. Defamation is denned by Section 499, I. P. C. thus:'Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.'3. It is not disputed that the expression 'black-marketeer' which is per se defamatory I within the meaning of the aforesaid section was used by the accused in relation to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-07-1952
Reported in : AIR1953Kant132; AIR1953Mys132
ORDERBalakrishnaiya, J.1. This petition was filed under Section 497, Cr. P. C. and another petition under Section 498 was filed on 4-4-52 in Court, supported by an affidavit and a Doctor's certificate. Both these petitions contain a prayer for enlarging the petitioner on bail. The Advocate-General stated that there was no objection to treat the earlier petition itself as having been filed under Section 498. 2. For an alleged attempt made on 24-3-1952 to commit murder by strangulation, the petitioner was arrested and a case against him was registered under Section 307, I. P. C. The applications for bail filed by him in the Court of the City Magistrate, Bangalore, before whom he was produced in the course of investigation, have been rejected. 3. The offence under Section 307, I. P. C. is a non-bailable one. The Criminal Procedure Code under Section 496 provides for granting bail in offences Other than non-bailable, and Section 497 regulates the admission to bail in non-bailable cases. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-26-1952
Reported in : AIR1953Kant113; AIR1953Mys113; ILR1953KAR114
1. The question raised in this case is whether an adoption by a Hinduwidow affects alienation of family properties prior to the adoption when the alienor was the sole surviving coparcener. The undisputed facts of the case are that the properties specified in plaint schedules belonged to a joint Hindu family consisting of Kolli Sanna Veerappa and his only son Hanumappa. The son died on or before 1934 leaving a widow Hanumavva and his father. On 9-8-1936, the suit properties were sold by the father Sanna Veerappa to one Subba Rao. The plaintiff relies on this sale to support his title. On 27-9-1937 Hanumavva the daughter-in-law of Sanna Veerappa sued him and his alienee for a share in the properties. The suit was dismissed.Defendant 2 is said to have given defendant 1, his son, in adoption to Hanumavva on 23-7-1936 and on the strength of this adoption the plaintiff's claim to the properties is challenged. The proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C., ended with an order under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-30-1952
Reported in : AIR1953Kant55; AIR1953Mys55; ILR1953KAR134; (1954)32MysLJ128
1. The suit in O. S. No. 171 of 48-49 on the file of the Munsiff, Krishnarajanagar, in respect of which this appeal arises came up for evidence on 4-1-1949. The plaintiff's counsel on that date gave an offer to the defendant in the following terms as is clear from the order sheet :'That if he (defendant) swears before Hampapur Amma Temple at Hampapur that he (defendant) does not owe anything to the plaintiff, the suit will be dismissed or if the defendant allows the plaintiff to swear before the said temple that the defendant has taken a loan from him (plaintiff) the suit will be decreed as prayed for. The defendant states that he would: take an oath before the said temple. The plaintiff's counsel admits to it.'The Court passed an order appointing a commissioner for administering an oath and stated that if the defendant were to swear the suit shall be dismissed with the costs of the defendant and that it should be decreed in case he failed to do so. Before the date on which the oath ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-10-1952
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1040
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal is raised by the learned Counsel for the accused. The appeal is filed under Section 417, Criminal P.C. against an order of acquittal by the Advocate-General on behalf of Government in accordance with the practice all along which was not questioned until very recently. It may be mentioned that there is no Public Prosecutor appointed by the Government to attend to criminal cases in appeal, revision or of reference in this Court and the Government is being represented by the Advocate-General in all such cases. The objection is based on the mention of Public Prosecutor and not Advocate-General in the Section as the person who may be instructed by the Government to file the appeal and on the distinction made in the Code between the two, not merely in the definition under Section 4 but also in other sections in which either is specifically referred 10.Since the provisions relating to appeal do not refer to Adv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-29-1952
Reported in : AIR1953Kant38; AIR1953Mys38; ILR1953KAR234; (1954)32MysLJ54
1. The point for consideration inthis appeal is whether the lower Courts wereright is dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs onpoints of law raised in the case. The plaintiffsclaim in this suit 'chat the suit pro property belongsto them after the death of Gowregowda, firstplaintiff's husband, the' original owner of the property. They contend that defendant 2 underwhom defendant 1 claims the pro property is notGowregowda's son. Present defendant 1 had filedO. S. 625 of 40-41 on the file of the Munsiff'sCourt, Nanjangud against defendant 2 on a hypothecation deed executed by him. Defendant 2 didnot contest that suit, but the plaintiffs in thissuit who were impleaded in that suit as defendants contended as they do now that the suitproperties exclusively belonged to them and defendant 2 who had executed the hypothecation deed,was not the son of Gowregowda, plaintiff 1's husband, to whom the properties in dispute originallybelonged.It was contended by defendant 1 who was the plaintiff in tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-01-1952
Reported in : [1953]4STC94(Kar)
ORDER1. The petitioner in these two revision petitions is a dealer in fried-gram knows as 'Hurigadale' as has been mentioned in the charge-sheet itself. He has been convicted in C.C. Nos. 537 and 538 of 1951-52 on the file of the City Magistrate, Mysore, for failure to pay sales tax for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 within 21 days from the date of service of demand notice. It is contended that the petitioner did not file an appeal against the demand notice under Section 14 of the Sales Tax Act and that he did not take any steps to question his liability to pay the sales tax under Sections 15 and 16 of that Act. 2. According to the prosecution, under Section 22 of the Act no assessment made under it shall be called in question in any Court save as provided in Sections 14 to 16 of the Act. It has however to be noticed at this stage that Section 6 of the Act makes it clear that the Government may by notification in the Official Gazette make an exception, or reduction in rate in respect of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-14-1952
Reported in : AIR1953Kant19; AIR1953Mys19; (1954)32MysLJ148
ORDER1. In this case the petitioner has been convicted for non-payment of sales tax in accordance with the demand notice served on him.2. The main contention of the Petitioner is that he is a commission agent not liable to pay sales tax. It is on the other hand contended that under Section 22 of the Sales Tax Act, no order passed under the Act or the rules made thereunder by any assessing authority shall be called in question except in the manner provided by the Act itself. While it can be said that if the assessment is one made under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act, the correctness of the order cannot be questioned in any civil or criminal Court, it is clear that if the assessment is found to be not one made under the Act, there is no bar in Section 22 of the Act prohibiting civil or criminal courts from considering the correctness of the order as that section refers only to an assessment made under the Act.3. The first point that arises for consideration in this case is whether t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-29-1952
Reported in : AIR1953Kant41; AIR1953Mys41; ILR1953KAR69; (1954)32MysLJ83
1. The appellants, who were accused 1 to 7 in the lower Court, have been convicted of rioting and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and some of them to further imprisonment for other offences found to be committed by them. Of the six charges framed in the case, No. 1 relates to rioting, No. 2 to the murder alleged to have been committed by Accused 2, 3, & 11, the third to an offence-under Section 302/149, I. P. C. by accused 1 to 7, 9 and 10, as members of the unlawful assembly, in pursuance of the common object of which accused 2, 8 and 11 murdered Basavanna Gowda. The other charges relate to tile individual acts committed by some of the accused, it is rather surprising that although the charges as framed by the Magistrate arc said to have been amended before the trial, there is no mention of the date in any of the charges on which any of the offences is alleged to have been committed. The omission is not material as it was well understood to be 23-9-1950 when the electio...
Tag this Judgment!