Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-15-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Kant146; AIR1953Mys146; ILR1953KAR329
1. The Chitaldrug Police placed a charge-sheet against the respondent before the Second Magistrate, Chitaldrug, under Section 4(i) (a), Mysore Prohibition Act. When the case was pending, the prosecution applied to the Magistrate for amending the provision of the charge by the substitution of Section '4(1) (c)' of the same Act for Section '4(i)(a)'. The Magistrate having refused the prayer, the prosecution approached the District Magistrate to refer the matter under Section 438, Criminal P. C., to the High Court. The District Magistrate declined to make a reference and rejected the petition on 12-3-52. As the records were called for by the District Magistrate, the trial Court went on adjourning the case to several dates of hearing intervening the disposal, and the order sheet of 13-3-1952 reads thus: 'Accused absent, await orders 24-3-52.' On 24-3-52, the Magistrate dismissed the case at 11-30 A.M. acquitting the accused under Section 247, Criminal P. C. on the ground that the Prosecuti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-30-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant9; AIR1954Mys9
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the conviction and sentence passed by the' Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in Chikmagalur Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 51-52, confirming the conviction of the accused of an offence under Section 417, I.P.C. but modifying the- sentence passed on she petitioner by the Munsiff-Magistrate of Narasimharajapur in C.C. No. 98 of 50-51. 2. The case against the petitioner is that he induced the Government to pass PR order that certain G.I. Pipes belonging to Kallatipura village panchayat might be sold to him at the rate of 0-6-0 per foot and induced them to believe that they were needed by him for being used for agricultural purposes for his lands. That such an order was passed by the Government and that in his applications before different authorities he referred to lands as 'my' land or 'our' lands is not disputed. It is in evidence that the G.I. pipes had been laid for purposes of affording water facilities to the village and that they had become o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-06-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant114; AIR1954Mys114; ILR1953KAR662
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. The petitioner in these two cases is the same. He sued the respondent for recovery of amounts due under two on demand promissory notes, and, in the course of one of the suits, applied for attachment before judgment of money due to the defendant under a bill tendered to the Executive Engineer, Buildings Division, Bangalore. No money, however, was received in Court or even found to be actually payable. The suits ended in decrees against the defendant and the application filed by the defendant for payment of compensation on account of the attachment being wrongful was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal by the defendant, the decrees of the trial Court as regards the amounts payable under the pronotes were confirmed, but compensation of Rs. 250/- was allowed to the defendant on the view that the attachment was obtained on insufficient grounds. The learned Judge also directed the plaintiff to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on the ground that he, as a money-lender, has not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-19-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant31; AIR1954Mys31
ORDERVasudevamurthy, J.1. This is a revision petition which has been filed against the order of the City Magistrate, Bangalore, dismissing the petitioner's application for maintenance against her husband under section 488, Criminal P. C. The respondent though served is absent and unrepresented.2. I think this is a clear case in which the respondent is bound to give maintenance to the petitioner. Admittedly the respondent has been writing letters to the petitioner's brother asking for money. The learned Magistrate has tried to make some distinction between requests for money and demands for the same which is really of no substance where the person asking is a son-in-law of the family who is postponing taking his wife to live with him. In Ex. p-6 the respondent has 'cautioned' the petitioner's brothers not to be 'beggarly' and 'ridiculous' when arranging for nuptials and that if they do not spend 'a few hundreds' 'the consequences will be very undesirable'. In Ex. p-8 he has written a re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-27-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant52; AIR1954Mys52; ILR1954KAR95
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order under the Insolvency Act passed by the learned District Judge setting aside the dismissal of two petitions I. A. Nos. IV and V in I. C. 9/36-37 of Chickballapur Munsiff's Court. That case arose on a petition by two creditors for their debtor Settappa and his two sons being adjudged insolvents. The petition was dismissed as against the sons but Settappa was adjudged Insolvent on 3-9-40 fixing a period of 6 months for discharge. The creditors had to prove the debts due to them toy 25-10-40 but only on 14-12-45 affidavits were filed by petitioners as regards the amounts due to them. An order for the Receiver taking possession of the insolvent's properties was passed on 7-3-41 but this was recalled on 9-11-45 by stating that 'the vesting order is returned'. Later this adjudication itself was annulled on 21-12-45 and subsequently the two applications I. As. IV and V were filed for the administration of the properties. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-13-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant12; AIR1954Mys12
ORDERVasudevamurthy, J.1. The petitioners 13 in number who were accused in the Court of the Second City Magistrate, Mysore, and who are all described as students, have been tried and convicted for an offence under Section 56(o), Mysore Police Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- each and in default to undergo S. I. for six days. The charge against them was that on 26-9-1952 at about 10-30 A.M. they were present at a meeting held to inaugurate the work of the Committee on Educational Reforms in Mysore in the Crawford Hall, Mysore City, and that there they behaved riotously and in a disorderly manner by shouting some slogans and throwing pamphlets and thereby caused a breach of the peace. The charge also mentioned that the accused's conduct amounted to offences by Clauses (o), (q) and (r) of Section 56. Though the learned Magistrate has not chosen to make any reference to the offences under Clauses (q) and (r) of Section 56 and does not say in his judgment whether he acquitted the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-30-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Kant156; AIR1953Mys156; ILR1953KAR440; (1954)32MysLJ12
Venkataramaiya, J.1. These are three petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of writs in the nature of Mandamus, certiorari or appropriate directions to the Government of Mysore on grounds which are substantially the same. These were heard together and may be conveniently disposed of by one order as the principal question raised in it whether Government can review orders regarding grant of agricultural lands. The facts which may be taken as undisputed are that the Petitioner in C. P. 155 of 51-52 was granted 3 acres in S. NO. 24 in Narsipur village, Arsikara Taluk, Hassan District on payment of Rs. 75/-, the appeal preferred by some persons to the Revenue Commissioner objecting to the grant was dismissed on 27-11-1944, that Government also dismissed on 22-2-1946 the appeal filed against the order of the Revenue Commissioner, that the application filed subsequently for review of the order was rejected by Government on 21-12-1949 but on a second petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-22-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant58; AIR1954Mys58; ILR1953KAR622; (1955)33MysLJ179
ORDER1. The petitioners who are six in number have been convicted under Section 151, I. P. C. for having refused to go away when asked to do so by the Police Inspector on 31-12-52 and each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5. The case was tried summarily and this is one of the grounds of objection to the conviction. From what can be gathered by a perusal of the judgment and the exhibits there is a dispute between the accused on the one hand and one Eregowda on the other about the ownership, possession or both of a land. Eregowda anticipating trouble by the accused being caused to his cutting the crops applied for police help and as apprehended accused went in a body to prevent Eregowda from removing the crop and refused to quit tile place as ordered by the Inspector. It is argued that Section 151, I, P. C. has been resorted to with a view to deprive the accused benefit of a trial in the ordinary manner by giving up the complaint alleging serious offences, that the order of the inspector w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-24-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant81; AIR1954Mys81
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. On the evening of 8-11-1952 one Venkataramanappa alias Appaiah aged about 43 years was murdered in front of his own house in Tirumalahally, a village situated at a distance of about 6 miles from Mulbagal and about 60 miles from Bangalore. Information of the murder reached the police Out Post at Tayalur shortly after and conveyed to the Sub Inspector at Mulbagal the same night. Investigation started on the following day and a charge sheet was placed on 25-11-1952 In the Magistrate's Court at Kolar against 9 men alleging commission of the offence of murder by some with the abetment of others amongst them. Of the 9 persons thus accused, the last has been absconding, the 3rd was discharged and the rest were committed for trial.The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Accused 2, 4 and 5, found Accused 1 guilty of committing the murder and sentenced him to death. Accused 6, 7 and 8 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 I. P. C. and sentenced to transportatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-05-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant122; AIR1954Mys122
1. The appellant-accused was tried by the Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division, for an offence under Section 302, I. P. C. but was convicted under Section 323, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. The case against him was that on the evening of 8th June 1952 ho committed murder of one Rajagopal by squeezing his testicles near a mango garden beyond the limits of the Tumkur town. Of the three assessors, two were of the opinion that the accused was guilty while the third was doubtful. 2. The learned Sessions Judge fully believed the occurrence. He held that the accused had waylaid the deceased Rajagopal and had assaulted him and used criminal force against him by squeezing his testicles as a result of which he died in his house a few hours later. He found that the motive which prompted the accused to assault Rajagopal was clearly established by eviden...
Tag this Judgment!