Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-11-1954
Reported in : AIR1954Kant102; AIR1954Mys102
Medapa, C.J.1. It will be necessary for a proper consideration of the arguments advanced in the case to set out in some detail the facts and circumstances which have led up to, and relevant for the disposal of this petition.The petitioner and the respondents were duly nominated candidates for election to the Mysore State Legislative Assembly from the Tarikere Constituency at the general elections held in this State on 4-1-1952. Respondents 5 to 9 withdrew their candidature within the prescribed time and as a result only the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 contested the elections. In the elections the petitioner secured 8093 votes as against 8059, 6239, 1644 and 1152 votes obtained by respondents 1 to 4 respectively. The Returning Officer thereupon declared the petitioner as the successful candidate in the election and the said declaration was published in the Mysore Gazette on 11-2-1952 as per the provisions of Section 67, Representation of the People Act, 1951.The petitioner lodged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-04-1954
Reported in : AIR1954Kant164; AIR1954Mys164
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1953 confirming the conviction under Section 292, I. P. C., but modifying the sentence passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 10 of 1952-53.2. The petitioner-accused is the editor of a monthly journal known as 'Kama Kala'. The prosecution case is that the accused-petitioner is distributing and has put into circulation this monthly journal which contains obscene writings and pictures. Eleven copies of the journal of different months have been exhibited in the case and three witnesses were examined for the prosecution and according to them the journal contains obscene writings harmful to youngmen and women. On the other hand, the accused has examined two witnesses of whom one is Dr. Put-tanna, a retired Surgeon and who was the Principal of the Medical College and the other gentleman is the well-known author Sri Devadu Narasimh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-18-1954
Reported in : AIR1954Kant150; AIR1954Mys150
ORDER1. The petitioner has been convicted under Clause (o) of Section 56, Mysore Police Act, for having uttered abusive words in indecent language in a public street and sentenced to pay a fine of four annas. The case was tried summarily and in view of Section 263, Criminal P. C., the correctness of the conviction has to be mainly determined from the judgment in the case. Sri S.K. Venkataranga Iyengar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that according to the report made by the police, the offence alleged is one falling under Clause (r) of Section 56 which requires that the words uttered should not only be abusive and in a street but also intended or likely to cause breach of the peace, that since there is no finding that the words were intended or likely to cause it, the conviction is erroneous. Under Clause (o) mere use of indecent language is punishable. The word 'indecent' is not found in Clause (r). That the words attributed to the accused are indecent admits of no doubt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-30-1954
Reported in : AIR1954Kant187; AIR1954Mys187
Vasudevamurthy, J1. The suit by the plaintiffs for redemption and possession of the plaint schedule lands has been decreed by the Court below and defendant 5 has come up in second appeal. The lands were mortgaged with possession by Pattangeri alias Markje Thammiah, father of plaintiffs 2 to 5, and Belliappa, father of plaintiff 1, in favour of Thekkada Belliappa the father of defendants 1 and 2 and grand-father of defendants 3 and 4 under a usufructuary mortgage deed dated 19-3-1894. According to the plaintiffs the mortgagee was entitled to the usufruct of the property for a period of 50 years from the date of that mortgage. He was bound to pay land revenue and other dues payable to Government upon the said property and to pay himself a sum of Rs. 600/- and interest thereon from the income of the property during that period, and thereafter restore back possession of the property to the mortgagors. It was also alleged in the plaint that while defendants 1 to 4 were in possession as lega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-04-1954
Reported in : AIR1958Kant6; AIR1958Mys6
Mallappa, J. 1. This is a revision petition under Section 4. Sub-section 1 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. Shi-moga, in C. Section No. 23 of 52-53 holding that the first defendant in that suit is not an agriculturist under the Agriculturists Relief Act. 2. It was urged in this case as is usual to urge in cases of this Kind that the revisional powers of this Court under Section 4, Sub-section 2 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act to examine the evidence and to interfere with the finding of the Courts below on the question of fact concerning status are greater than the revisiona1 powers usually exercised in small cause cases. The case relied on is the decision of Sreenivasa Rao J., reported in In re. Krishna Murthy, 15 Mys LJ 334 (A). Before considering that decision it is useful to compare 3. 4, Sub-section 2of the Mysore Agriculturists Belief Act with Section 10 of the Courts of Small Causes Act. According to Sections 10 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-10-1954
Reported in : AIR1955Kant32; AIR1955Mys32; 1955CriLJ391; ILR1954KAR370; (1956)34MysLJ152
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the complainant in C. C. No. 976 of 53 on the file of the Second Magistrate, Chitaldroog against the order of the District Magistrate, Chitaldroog in Criminal B. P. No. 6/54 on his file directing the disposal of property under Section 520, Criminal P. C.2. The revision petition before the District Magistrate has been preferred by the respondent, P. W. 12 in the trial court, against the order of the Second Magistrate, Chitaldroog, directing that the property, the subject-matter of the criminal case viz., Rs. 1000/- be delivered to the complainant.3. During the course of arguments in this Court Mr. B.S. Puttasiddiah learned counsel for the respondent disclosed that an appeal has since been filed by the accused, before the Sessions Judge, against the judgment of conviction. The disposal of property being an integral portion of the judgment is finally subject to the order in appeal. Where no appeal is filed, it is clear that both the District Magistrate an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-10-1954
Reported in : AIR1955Kant41; AIR1955Mys41; (1956)34MysLJ193
ORDER1. The petitioner who is common to these petitions has been convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore in C. C. Nos. 1180 & 1181/53 on his file and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- in each case.2. The prosecution was under Section 20, Mysore Sales-tax Act, and related to the default in the payment of sales-tax assessed amounting to Rs. 243-11-3 for the year 50-51 and Rs. 956-6-3 for the year 49-50. A common plea that he is not liable to pay taxes levied was entered into to both these cases. They were tried together as the offences were similar and against the same per-son. Mr. Nanjundaswamy, on behalf of the petitioner, raised rather faintly, an argument that the joint trial is void. I am unable to appreciate the argument since the procedure adopted is neither illegal nor is it shown that any prejudics has been caused to the petitioner thereby.3. It is next contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, that the petitioner was not afforded adequate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-11-1954
Reported in : AIR1955Kant1; AIR1955Mys1; 1955CriLJ160
ORDER1. The Petitioner has been convicted Under Section 182 for making a false complaint against one Avani Munivenkatappa alleging illicit manufacture of toddy. The complaint, was made to the daffedar Malur on 8-10-52 and after Investigation a B report was filed. Sanction was obtained from the Superintendent of Police to prosecute the Petitioner for making a false complaint and a charge-sheet was filed in Courtfor the same. The prosecution examined sevenwitnesses and two were examined on behalf ofthe Petitioner. The learned Magistrate dis-believed the evidence in support of the defence,convicted the petitioner and sentenced him topay a fine of Rs. 30/-. 2. Sri Ranga Rao Kadom, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that the conviction is illegal on the ground that the condition necessary for the initiation of the proceedings has not been satisfied and that it is unwarranted since there is no finding that the Petitioner's complaint was false to his knowledge. The first ground la base...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-13-1954
Reported in : AIR1954Kant181; AIR1954Mys181; ILR1954KAR374
Venkataramaiya, J.1. The petitioner in these two cases is an accused in two cases on the file of the Court of the City Magistrate, Mysore, which arose from police charge sheets alleging commission of offence of cheating. The petitioner who is said to be a resident in Bombay applied for exemption from appearance in Court at the hearing but permission was refused on the ground that warrant and not summons was issued to him for his appearance. A decision of this Court in 3 Mys LJ 66 (N) (A) is referred to in support of the refusal. In that case summons was issued at first to the accused' and later on a warrant. But before the warrant was executed the accused applied for and obtained exemption. This was considered by Doraswamy Iyer J. to have the effect of the cancellations of the warrant and not as such to offend the provisions of Section 205, Criminal P.C. which states :'Whenever a magistrate issues a summons he may, if he sees reason to do so, dispense with the personal attendance of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-17-1954
Reported in : AIR1955Kant17; AIR1955Mys17; 1955CriLJ360
Medapa, C.J.1. The facts of the case leading up to this appeal have been set out in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and also of my learned brother and need no repetition. The evidence discloses that articles of jewellery said to have been worn by the deceased Nanjamma have been traced to the possession of the accused persons within 6 days of the date of her death and seized under a mahazar 15 days thereafter. The appellants have not explained the circumstances under which they came to be in possession of the said articles. Section 114, Evidence Act, and in particular illustration (a) to that section warrants under the circumstances a presumption of guilt against the' appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the jwellery traced to the possession of the appellants are unidentifiable articles and as such there was no material to warrant a presumption under Section 114(a), Evidence Act.2. A perusal of the charge to the jury in the judgment of the learned...
Tag this Judgment!