Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-04-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Kant96; AIR1955Mys96; 1955CriLJ973
ORDER1. These two petitions in which the petitioner is the same and the point involved is common can be disposed of by a single order. Both relate to cases in which the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 420, I.P.C. which, according to the schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, is bailable. The petitioner applied for bail and the learned Magistrate granted it on condition of his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- and furnishing two sureties for a like sum. The amount- mentioned being felt to be excessive, the petitioner applied to the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, for reduction of the amount, and he reduced it to Rs. 2500/-. The requirements of this order were satisfied and the cases are still pending in the Magistrate's Court An application was filed on behalf of the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the petitioner was repeatedly absent on the dates; (SIC) hearing of the cases and the progr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-04-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Kant134; AIR1955Mys134; 1955CriLJ1511
ORDER1. In the charge sheet presented by the Police in C.C. No. 53 of 1954 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Chikmagalur, the accused is said to have committed offence of theft with respect to a carpet in Tiptur which is admittedly not within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Consequently he desired that the case should be transferred to the Court competent to try it. The District Magistrate on being apprised of this has sought for orders of this Court for the case being tried in Chikmagalur itself as the complainant, the accused and the witnesses are all residents of that place and trial of the case there will be conducive to their convenience as well as speedy disposal of the case. The accused though notified, is absent and unrepresented.A doubt was at first felt whether Section 526, Criminal P. C. can be availed of when the case was wrongly instituted in a Court and no question of sending the case from one court to another is involved. There are, however, instances in whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-12-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Kant59; AIR1955Mys59; 1955CriLJ718
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Cr. Misc. Appeal No. 11/1953 reversing that of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mysore, in Misc. No. 103 of 51-52.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows: The petitioners 1 and 2, who are wife and husband respectively were defendants in O. S. No. 46 of 50-51 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mysore. The respondent was the plaintiff. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was based on a registered mortgage deed and the petitioners pleaded 'inter alia' partial discharge of the debt in Question. In support of the discharge pleaded, the petitioner produced two letters which are marked as Exs. I and II purporting to have been sent to them by the respondent-plaintiff, acknowledging receipt of Rs. 4000/-. The learned Subordinate Judge found, on evidence, that the discharge pleaded by the petitioners based on Exs. I and II was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-02-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Kant112; AIR1955Mys112; 1955CriLJ1083
ORDER1. This is a Revision Petition preferred by the Petitioners-Accused against the order of the learned Special Second Magistrate, Shimoga, in C.C. 545/54, refusing permission to their Advocate Sri Bhavani shankara Rao to appear for and defend them.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows : The Petitioners are under-trial prisoners in C.C. No. 545/54 on the file of the learned Special Second Magistrate, Shimoga. At a late stage of the enquiry, the Petitioners wanted to engage Sri Bhavani shankara Rao as their counsel to defend them in the case. The said Sri Bhavani shankara Rao was examined as P.W. 58 in the case for the prosecution. Therefore he filed an application to the learned Magistrate praying for permission to allow him to appear for and defend the accused. The learned Magistrate refused the said permission on the ground that as Sri Bhavani shankara Rao had been examined as a witness for the prosecution, it was not desirable to permit him to d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-10-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Kant113; AIR1955Mys113; 1955CriLJ1269
ORDER1. This is a Revision Petition preferred by the petitioners-accused 1 and 2 against the order of the learned District Magistrate, Chickmagalur in Cr.R.P. 8 of 1954, setting aside the order of the. learned Special Second Class Magistrate, Tarikere in C. C. 25/54 holding that sanction of Government to prosecute these petitioners was necessary under Section 197, Cr. P. C.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly these:3. Petitioners 1 and 2 are accused 1 and 2 and the respondent is the complainant in C. C. 25/54 on the file of the Special Second Class Magistrate, Tarikere. The complainant is a hotel-keeper at Kadur. The petitioners are President and Vice-president respectively of the Kadur Town Municipal Council. A-3 to A-10 are the employees in the said Municipality. Accused 11 and 12 are the Police Constables working at Kadur. The Respondent-complainant's petition was that on 16-5-1953 the said accused persons trespassed into his hotel and committed theft of mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-22-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Kant119; AIR1955Mys119; 1955CriLJ1274
Sreenivasa Rau, J.1. This is an-appeal against the judgment, dated 12-8-1954, of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division, in Kolar Sessions Case .No. 7 of 1954, convicting the accused-appellant, Chikka Byre Gowda alias Nadipina Byregowda, of an offence punishable under Section 302, 1. P. C. and sentencing him to death. The proceedings have also been submitted to the High Court for confirmation under S. 374, Cr. P. C.2. The prosecution case is as follows :3. The accused was the second of three brothers who were living as members of a joint Hindu family. The eldest brother Doddabyregowda had a son B, Byregowda and a number of daughters. The son studied up to the S. S. L. C. examination and returned home. He thereafter interested himself in the management of the family affairs. He took exception to the accused selling away the goats belonging to the family behind the back of his brothers. Ultimately this dissatisfaction resulted in a partition of the family properties amongst the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-25-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Kant144; AIR1955Mys144; 1955CriLJ1613
ORDERH. Hombe Gowda, J.1. This is a revision petition filed against an order passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate of Dodballapur in C.C. No. 233/54 on his file directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 5/- to each of the three respondents after acquitting them in the case.2. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 352 of the Penal Code into the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Dodballapur and the same was registered as C. C. No. 233/54. The respondents who were served with summons appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty to the charge that was read over and explained to them. The complainant and two witnesses were examined and the case for the petitioner was closed.The respondents examined two witnesses on their behalf and closed their case. The learned Munsiff-Magistrate came to the conclusion that no case was made out against the respondents for any of the offences alleged against them and acquitted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-26-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Kant135; AIR1955Mys135; 1955CriLJ1512
ORDERPadmanabhiah, J.1. This is a Revision Petition filed by the Petitioners--Accused 1 and 2 praying that the charge framed against them under Section 500 I. P. C., in C. C. No. 2555 of 1953 on the file of the First Magistrate, Bangalore, may be quashed.2. The petitioners are the accused and the respondent is the complainant in C. C. 2555 of 1953 on the file of the First Magistrate, Bangalore. The accused stand charged for an offence under Section 500-I. P. C. The case of the complainant is that in a suit filed by petitioner 1 in O. S. 348 of 1953 on the file of the Munsiff, Chickballapur against her brothers and others, she has made and published certain imputations concerning the respondent-complainant, that the said allegations are false and malicious and per se defamatory, that petitioner 2 is the Advocate who appeared for petitioner 1 and drafted the plaint for her, that there is ill will between the accused and the respondent, that the said imputations were made maliciously just...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-09-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Kant128; AIR1955Mys128
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, in Misc. Case No. 106 of 1953 on his file permitting the respondents to continue the proceedings in this case in forma pauperis.2. The respondents prayed for grant of a probate of the will and codicil alleged to have been, executed by S.M. Nanjundappa who died on 22-9-1948 in Misc. Case No. 106 of 1953 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore. The present petitioner who was one of the respondents in the Court below resisted the application and contended that the respondents were bound to pay the court-fee on the value of the trust properties before they could pray for grant of a probate in the case. The learned District Judge directed the respondents to pay the court-fee. The respondents then made an application under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil P.C., for permission to continue the proceedings in forma pauperis. They alleged in their petition that they ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-16-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Kant129; AIR1955Mys129; 1955CriLJ1503
1. This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-accused against the judgment of the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Kolar Gold Fields, in C. C. No. 1032/55, convicting him of an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 25 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days.2. The case for the prosecution was that the accused was on 11-9-54 found with a silver sport cup valued at Rs. 20 knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and that he thereby committed an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. The accused is said to have pleaded guilty which resulted in the conviction and sentence referred to above. It is against that decision that this revision petition is filed. 3. It appears to me that the proceedings in the lower Court are attended with, serious irregularities. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure laid down in Section 262, Cr.P.C. has not been followed and...
Tag this Judgment!