Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-02-1991
Reported in : 1992CriLJ167; ILR1991KAR1146; 1991(1)KarLJ266
ORDER1. The sole point to be determined in this Revision Petition filed under Ss. 397 and 398 read with S. 401, Cr.P.C. is : Whether the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Davangere (for short 'the Magistrate') has committed illegality in dismissing under S. 203, Cr.P.C. a private complaint (P.C. No. 19/90) filed by the petitioner against the respondents under S. 200, Cr.P.C. by order dated 23-6-90 on the ground of want of sanction under S. 197, Cr.P.C. to prosecute the respondents after having taken cognizance of the offences under Ss. 170, 166, 415, 417, 416 and 419 all read with S. 34, I.P.C. and thereafter recording the sworn statement of the complainant and two witnesses on 4-6-90 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are as under : (a) Petitioner is an Advocate residing at Davangere. He claims to be an active member and worker of the Cong (I) party and a dedicated co-operator who held the reins of a Co-operative Institution called 'Bhadra Sahakara Sakkare Kharkana Niyamith, Doddaba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-04-1991
Reported in : 1991CriLJ2262
Mirdhe, J.1. This Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 4-10-1990 of the learned Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Special Case No.2/1988.2. The case was posted for hearing on admission on 2-1-1991. The learned Counsel for the petitioner remained absent. Hence the Court adjourned the case to today to hear the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is absent even on this day. Hence the Court has no other alternative but to hear the learned Government Pleader and to peruse the records and to proceed to pass orders.3. The impugned order in this case is passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hassan, holding that there is material to frame a charge accusation for contravention of Rule 8 of Cement Control Order, 1983, read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and he proceeded to frame a charge-accusation against the accused.4. The main contention of the Revision-Petitioner is that the Police Officer had no autho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-04-1991
ORDER1. This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 4-10-1990 of the learned Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Special Case No. 2/1988. 2. The case was posted for hearing on admission on 2-1-1991 the learned counsel for the petitioner remained absent. Hence the Court adjourned the case to today to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner is absent even on this day. Hence the Court has no other alternative but to hear the learned Government Pleader and to peruse the records and to proceed to pass orders. 3. The impugned order in this case is passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hassan, holding that there is material to frame a charge accusation for contravention of R. 8 of Cement Control Order, 1983, read with Ss. 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and he proceeded to frame a charge-accusation against the accused. 4. The main contention of the revision-petitioner is that the Police Officer had no authority or p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-07-1991
Reported in : (1991)97CTR(Kar)51; [1991]192ITR20(KAR); [1991]192ITR20(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The following question has been referred to us for consideration under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the internal telephone system should be considered as 'plant' of the assessee's factory and investment allowance has to be granted ?' 2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of electronic equipment. It has an internal telephone system with about 20 lines. This installation is claimed to be a plant and investment allowance was claimed by the assessee. However, the original authority did not grant the allowance but, on appeal, the same was granted by the Commissioner (Appeals). This order of the first appellate authority was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, this reference at the instance of the Revenue. 3. The question arose under section 32A of the Income-tax A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-1991
Reported in : 1991CriLJ2641
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Petition filed under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 8-10-1990 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli, in Criminal Appeal No. 39/1989 confirming the order dated 15-3-1989 passed by the J.M.F.C., (II Court), Hubli, in C.C. No. 1713 of 1988. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Revision petition is admitted. 3. The petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 16(1)(a) of the P.F.A. Act and he was convicted under section 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Magistrate on the ground that he pleaded guilty and he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- In default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Additional Sessions Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-21-1991
Reported in : ILR1991KAR582
Shivaraj Patil, J. 1. All these appeals are directed against the orders passed by the learned single Judge in the respective writ petitions striking down sub-section (3A) and sub-section (5) of section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, as unconstitutional and ultra vires. The respondents in the writ petitions are the appellants in these appeals. Since common questions of law arise for determination in these appeals, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The writ petitioners sought for a writ of certiorari praying to quash the amended provisions of sub-section (3A) and sub-section (5) of section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act') as amended by Karnataka Act No. 15 of 1988. By the said Amendment Act 15 of 1988, the power of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal granting stay orders in appeals filed before the Tribunal arising out of the appeals disposed of by the appellate authority, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-25-1991
Reported in : 1991CriLJ2126; 1991(1)KarLJ257
ORDER1. This is a Revision Petition filed under section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short). It is directed against the order dated 27-1-1987 made by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udupi, in C.C. No. 210/86 on his file. Under the order impugned in this Revision Petition, the learned Magistrate has stopped the proceedings under section 258 of the Code and has discharged respondents Nos. 1 and 2 of the offences alleged against them. 2. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the petitioner-State and the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (accused Nos. 1 and 2) are heard. The record of the matter and the record and proceedings of the Court below are perused and examined. 3. To decide the correctness, legality or propriety of the order assailed in this Revision Petition, it is necessary to refer to the facts leading to this Revision Petition. Briefly stated, the facts are as under : On 22-11-1982 at about 5 p.m., N....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-29-1991
Reported in : ILR1991KAR1646
Krishnan, J.1. This appeal preferred by the State under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the sentence awarded by J.M.F.C., Bhatkai, in C.C.No.1358/1986 whereby the learned Magistrate sentenced the accused on his alleged plea of guilt for offences under Sections 279, 304A IPC and Section 116 read with Section 89(B) of Motor Vehicles Act, to pay a fine of Rs. 350/- in default to undergo simple imprison me it for one month. The respondent herein was prosecuted by Bhatkal Police under Sections 279, 304A IPC and Section 89(B) read with Section 116 of Motor Vehicles Act that on . 21-9-1986 at 2.30 P.M. he (accused) drove Car No.MZH 4432 on Bhatkal Honnavar Road in a rash or negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed against one Subbanna Shetty and caused his death and further, he did not report the matter to the nearest police station. The accused appeared before the lower Court on 19-11-1986 and thereafter, copies of documents referred to in Section 173 Code of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-31-1991
Reported in : [1991]191ITR156(KAR); [1991]191ITR156(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question referred to us under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), read thus : '(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law while holding that when once a valid revised return was filed by the assessee, it completely effaces and obliterates the original return and, therefore, it is only the revised return that has to be taken into account for the purpose of making the assessment (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that for purposes of allowing the entertainment expenses under section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act, the profits and gains of the business should be taken to be the income without setting off the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years and right in granting relief or Rs. 25,000 to the assesses-company ?' 2. An answer to the second question would aid in solving the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-31-1991
Reported in : (1995)IIILLJ857Kant
M.M. Nirdhe, J.1. Criminal Petition No. 1562 of 1988 is filed by the petitioners praying to quash the proceedings initiated by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, in C.C. No. 300 of 1988.2. Criminal Petition No. 1563 of 1988 is filed by the petitioners praying to quash the proceedings initiated by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, in C.C No. 1022 of 1988.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case.4. The respondent filed the complaint against the petitioners alleging that they have committed the offence punishable under Sections 85(a) and 85(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The learned Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, ordered for registering of the case and issue of the summons to the petitioners. Hence, these petitions.5. I have perused the records of the case. The order of the Pre...
Tag this Judgment!