Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-07-1966
Reported in : 1966CriLJ1280
ORDERH. Hombe Gowda, C.J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Yadgir in Criminal Case No. 4.3.1963 convicting the nine petitioners under Section 5 of the Hyderabad Gambling Act and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of the payment of fine to suffer S.I. for two weeks.2. The nine petitioners and another person by name Nazimul Saquib (A. 10) were prosecuted by the Sub-Inspector of Police of yadgir for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Hyderabad Gambling Act.The charge against the petitioners is that they were found playing a game of cards with money for stakes in a common gambling house bearing No. 1, 2, 92 situated Station area in Yadgir town at about 10 P.M. on 9.7.1962. The charge against A. 10 Nazimul Saquib was that he was the occupier of the premises which was used as a common gambling house and had knowingly allowed the petitioners to indulge in gambling in the said house. All the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-10-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Mys51; 1967CriLJ557; ILR1966KAR247; (1966)1MysLJ108
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence passed on the respondent in Criminal Case No. 445 of 1965 on the file of the Second Magistrate, Hassan. The respondent was charged with having committed an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and also of ;in offence under Section 3(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Charges under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act were framed and he pleaded guilty to both the charges. The learned Magistrate convicted him of both the charges and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304-A I. P. C. He also sentenced the petitioner to a fine of Rs. 25/-for the offence under Section 3(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Sri Ramachandra Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Kant40; AIR1967Mys40; 1967CriLJ386; ILR1966KAR252; (1966)1MysLJ124
ORDER1. The petitioner had been convicted of an offence under Section 58(f) of the Mysore Prohibition Act and sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to one month's S. I. The petitioner underwent the substantive sentence of one month's simple imprisonment, and as he did not pay the fine of Rs. 500/-, he also suffered the sentence of one month's S. I. passed in default of payment of fine. The said judgment of the court sentencing him was passed on 12-7-1962. On 24-8-1964, that is, about two years after the petitioner had undergone the sentence of imprisonment, the trial court issued a warrant of attachment of the joint family properties of the petitions for the recovery at the fine of Rs. 500. The petitioner has come up in revision questioning the propriety of the issue of such warrant.2. Sri Tilak Hegde, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, has questioned the propriety of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. He contends that as p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-1966
Reported in : AIR1966Mys293; 1966CriLJ1284; (1966)1MysLJ255
ORDER(1) The Petitioners before this Court are the accused in the Court of the Additional First Class s Magistrate, Mangalore in C.C. No. 2888/64. They were prosecuted for storing tea waste without a licence. The charge against them was under Section 41 read with section 30(3) of the Tea Act of 1953 and Clause 3 of the Tea Waste (Control) Order 1959.(2) The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows: On 18th of February 1964, P.W. 1 who is an Inspector of the Tea Board, inspected the godown of the petitioners. He found a stock of 70 Kgs. Of tea waste stored in the premises packed in two chests, and they had no licence as required under the Tea Waste (Control) Order 1959. P.W. 1 therefore took one sample from the said stock in the presence of their Manager. T his sample was divided and packed in three tins, labelled and sealed by P.W.1. one sample tin bearing No. 10/SP/64 was handed over to the petitioners. Another sample seized was sent to the Public Analyst who has been duly appoin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-1966
Reported in : AIR1966Mys296; 1966CriLJ1287; (1967)2MysLJ412
ORDER(1) The petitioner who was the accused in the trial Court, has been convicted by the Second City Magistrate, Bangalore of an offence under Section 376(1) red with Section 297(1) of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.(2) The charge against the petitioner was that he was found running a soap factors on 15-9-1964 at No. 20 III Block. Jayanagar, Bangalore, without obtaining a licence from the Commissioner of the Corporation of the city of Bangalore for the year 1964-65 and there by committed an offence under Section 297 read with Section 376(1) of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.(3) Sri Dayanand, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me three points: (1) Section 297 of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is ultra vires as it infringes Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution (2). As the complaint has be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-19-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Kant83; AIR1967Mys83; (1966)1MysLJ515
ORDER1. The Petitioner, who is the accused, has been convicted under Section 76(2) of the Maysore Prohibition Act and sentenced to seven days' rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. He filed an appeal against the said conviction and sentence to the learned Sessions Judge of Coorg, Mercara, which was dismissed and the said conviction and sentence was confirmed. He has come up to this Court in revision questioning the correctness of the said Order. 2. Sri Dasappa, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that there is no sufficient evidence that the petitioner was found drunk. He argues that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case and the onus is always on the prosecution to prove that the accused had consumed prohibited liquor. He further contends that the defence of the accused was that ho had taken B. G. Phos and the evidence of the Doctor coupled with the statement of the accused and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-19-1966
Reported in : AIR1966Mys241; 1966CriLJ1033; (1968)2MysLJ421
ORDER(1) The petitioner before this Court is the accused in the trial Court. A charge-sheet was laid against him by the Station House Officer, Gangavathi before the learned First Class Magistrate, Gangavathi, alleging that he had committed an offence under S. 409 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and wanted to proceed with the case under section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A petition was presented on behalf of the accused contending that the Court had no power to proceed with the case, as earlier, the learned Magistrate had accepted the 'B' Report submitted by the Police with regard to the same offence.(2) Sri M.M. Jagirdar learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed with the charge-sheet as he had earlier accepted the 'B' Report submitted by the police and ordered that the case be closed. He argues that the order of the learned Magistrate is a judicial order and the Magistrate is n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-21-1966
Reported in : AIR1966Kant320; AIR1966Mys320; (1966)1MysLJ271
(1) The appellant is the second wife of the respondent. She married him in 1946 when he already had a first wife living. This was before the coming into force of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act of 1946. After the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act of 1947 was passed subsequently, the appellant filed against her husband Divorce Suit No. 31 of 1951 on the file of the Court of the First Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Belgaum praying for a decree for judicial separation and permanent alimony One of the grounds on which judicial separation could be granted under Section 4 of the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act of 1947 is that the husband had married again before the coming into force of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act of 1946. The Bombay High Court in a decision reported in Laxmibai v. Wamanrao, : AIR1953Bom342 had taken the view that the benefit of this provision could be taken only by a first wife and not by a second wife. On account of this decision, the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-28-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Kant44; AIR1967Mys44; 1967CriLJ503; ILR1966KAR936; (1966)1MysLJ324
ORDER1. The petitioner before this Court was the 2nd accused in the trial court. He has been convicted by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bellary. of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rule I. for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer further Rule I. for one month. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed.2. The prosecution case was that the petitioner represented to P. W. 9 Chandra-sekharappa of Shimoga that he would get him a genuine driving licence from Bellary and induced him to deliver Rs. 100/-. The petitioner asked P. W. 9 to give him Rs. 25/- in the first instance and also to give three of hispnotographs. P. W. 9, believing him, gave Rs. 25/- and also the said three photographs. The petitioner promised to send the licence through Value Payable Post which P. W. 9 should take after payment of Rs. 75/-. Accordingly, when the V. P. article was received, P. W. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-02-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Kant33; AIR1967Mys33; (1966)1MysLJ569
Kalagate, J.1. First petitioner Laxman Sitaram Pai is the Manager and Second Petitioner Venkalesh Bhiku Pai is the Proprietor of the hotel known as 'Madhavashram' in house No 3441, College Road, Belgaum, The two petitioners were the accused in C. C. No. 8752 of 1964 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum City, and the charge against them was that they have committed an offence punishable under section 18(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The complaint was filed against the petitioners by the Belgium Borough Municipality by its Prosecutor Shri D.S. Sadre.2. P W. 1 Shri Umar is a Food inspector of Belgaum Municipality and it is the case of the prosecution that on 8-9-1964 the Food Inspector Mr Umar went to the lea shop of the accused known as 'Madhavashram' to take sample of milk at about 7 a.m., he found two vessels containing 15 seers of milk in one and 10 seers of milk In the other in the kitchen; the Inspector demand...
Tag this Judgment!