Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-09-1958
Reported in : AIR1958Kant128; AIR1958Mys128; 1958CriLJ1201; (1958)36MysLJ184
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned City Magistrate, Bangalore, in Criminal Misc. No. 16 of 1956. It is an order passed under Section 488, Cr. P. C. The petitioner is the husband. The respondent is his wife.2. The petitioner is an advocate practising in the City of Bangalore. He is a young man aged about 28 years. He married respondent on 17-1-1955. She was about 16 or 17 years old at the time of her marriage. The parties come from very respectable families. The marriage was performed with due pomp and ceremony. The young couple stirred their life with love and affection. The petitioner presented a number of jewels to his wife.The petitioner says that he even purchased a car to humour his wife. But their happiness was short lived. Very soon after their marriage they seemed to have differed on small matters, and made mountains of mole hills. I have carefully scanned the evidence on record to find out the cause of this disagreement. I am unable to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-13-1958
Reported in : AIR1958Kant138; AIR1958Mys138; 1958CriLJ1205; (1958)36MysLJ175
ORDER1. The petitioners are the accused in. C. C. No. 2038 of 1957 on the file or the First Class Magistrate, Bangalore. They are accused of an offence under Section 302, I. P, C. The case is at the stage of preliminary enquiry. In the course of the cross-examination of p. w. 2, his statement under Section 162, Criminal P. C., was marked as Exhibit D-3. Exhibit D-3 was read out to the witness.He was asked as to whether certain facts deposed to by Win in court are found in that statement. By this process the learned Advocate for the accused wanted to establish certain omission. During the re-examination, the Prosecutor wanted to explain the omissions in question with reference to a further statement made by the witness to the police during the investigation.This was objected to by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The basis of his objection was that he had contradicted the witness with reference to a statement made by him to the Police on 15-9-1957 at 7-30 a. m. whereas re-examin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-05-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Kant50; AIR1959Mys50; 1959CriLJ340; (1958)36MysLJ127
ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Ramanagaram, in Criminal Mis. Case No. 1 of 1958.2. The facts of the case are as follows :3. The police of Thippagondanahalli, Magadi Taluk, moved the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Ramanagaram, in Crime No. 44/57 to take action under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate issued the necessary preliminary order. In view of the emergency he took action under Section 145(4), Cr. P. C., and attached the property in dispute with the standing crops. He directed the Amildar of Magadi Taluk to he in charge of the attached property and he also directed him to sell the standing crops by public auction. The Amildar reported on 15-1-1958 as follows :'I went to Yelachaguppe Village on the noon of 13th and after waiting for about an hour and finding that a large number of persons had assembled near the lands, I proceeded with the auctioning of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-25-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Kant117; AIR1959Mys117; 1959CriLJ618; ILR1958KAR167; (1958)36MysLJ253
ORDER1. This is a criminal revision petition against the order passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division, in Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2 of 1957. The facts and circumstances which have led to the present criminal revision petition, briefly stated are as follows :2. There were proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Misc. Case No. 17/55 in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Tumkur. Amongst the documents which had been produced by the first party in those proceedings was a certain kandayam receipt which bore the date 15-12-1947 and purported to be for Rs. 66-11-3 and had been signed by Narajappa second member of the first party.This Narajappa appears to have been examined as P.W. 4 in the said proceedings and this receipt has been marked as Exhibit D-23. This receipt purported to show that the payment of the said amount of Rs. 66-11-3 had been made by Sidclara makka the first of the first party; but, it als...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-20-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Kant170; AIR1959Mys170; 1959CriLJ751; ILR1958KAR192; (1958)36MysLJ625
ORDER1. The petitioners in this Revision Petition were the accused persons in Criminal Case No. 185/57 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Hunsur and have been convicted by the learned Magistrate for an offence under Section 143 of the I. P. C., and each of the accused has been, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. The charge against the accused was that on 28-12-1956 they were the members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was by means of criminal force to take possession of a land lying in front of P. W. 1's house. 14 witnesses had been examined for the prosecution and a number of defence witnesses also had been examined.The charge-sheet which had been placed against the accused was in respect of certain other offences also, but the learned Magistrate charged them for an offence punishable under Section 143, I. P. C., and in regard to some of the accused he had framed a charge for an offence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-28-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Kant116; AIR1959Mys116; 1959CriLJ617
1. The Accused who is a widow has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302, I. P. C., for having killed her newly born child on the night of 19-3-1956 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The learned Sessions Judge has also in view of the circumstances of the case, recommended that this was a fit case for Government to reduce the sentence to one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. It was brought to our notice at the commencement of the arguments in the case that Government has remitted the un-expired portion of the sentence of imprisonment. Sri M. Ramachandra Rao who appears on behalf of the Legal Aid Society for the appellant stated that nevertheless he was entitled to press his appeal. We do not entertain any doubts in the matter since a remission of sentence does not mean acquittal and an aggrieved party has every right to vindicate himself or herself.3. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows:4. The accused lost her husband within a brief time after her ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-01-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-07-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Kant106; AIR1959Mys106; 1959CriLJ498; ILR1958KAR254; (1958)36MysLJ434
ORDER1. This is an application for special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal parsed by the Second Magistrate, Bangalore City. ThePetitioner made a written complaint to the Police that, on the evening of 8-9-1956, the Accused trespassed into his house, assaulted him and caused him hurt. After investigation, the Bangalore North Police placed a charge-sheet against the Accused in the Court below. After inquiry, charges were framed against the Accused for offences under Sections 448 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and after trial the Accused were acquitted.2. It is thus seen that the case was one instituted in the Court by the Police and not by the Petitioner. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to apply for special leave under Section 417, Sub-section 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It reads :'If such an order of acquittal is passed in any ease instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-02-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Kant119; AIR1959Mys119; 1959CriLJ620; ILR1958KAR354; (1958)36MysLJ592
ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Magistrate, Bangalore in C. C. No. 36/57. The respondent here-in filed a complaint against the petitioner accusing him of having committed offences under Sections 448 and 454, I.P.C. The offence is said to have been committed or, 4-10-1957. The complaint was filed on 25-11-1957. The learned Magistrate after examining the complainant on oath, dismissed the complaint mainly on the ground that the complaint did not represent a genuine grievance. According to that Court the complainant was agitating a civil right in a criminal Court. It emphasised the question of delay.2. The complainant went up in revision to the learned District Magistrate, Bangalore. The learned District Magistrate on interpreting Section 203, Cr. P. C. came to the conclusion that no Magistrate could dismiss a complaint unless he had examined the complainant and all the witnesses cited by him.In the instant case, the compl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-24-1958
Reported in : AIR1958Kant190; AIR1958Mys190; 1958CriLJ1522; (1958)36MysLJ497
ORDER1. The petitioner has come up in revision against the order of the learned City Magistrate, Bangalore, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 393 of 1957, wherein he enhanced the maintenance to be paid by the petitioner from Rs. 8/- to Rs. 50/- per month.2. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced from the Bar, it is necessary to state the facts of the case briefly.3. The petitioner married the respondent in about 1913. Later he took a second wife. The respondent filed an application under Section 488 Cr.P.C., as per Cr. Mis. No. 157 of 1938-39 on the file of the learned City Magistrate, Bangalore, claiming maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that he has neglected and refused to maintain her. In the course of the enquiry of the said petition, the parties represented to the Court that they had agreed that the petitioner should pay to the respondent maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month till his retirement from service and at the rate of Rs. 8/- per month after ...
Tag this Judgment!