Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-08-1992
Reported in : ILR1996KAR3066
ORDERK.B. Navadgi, J.1. The proceedings in this matter have been initiated and commenced on the Contempt Petition filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).2. On 25.8.1988, a Division Bench of this Court took cognizance of the matter and commenced the proceedings by directing issue of Show Cause Notice to the respondent, making the same returnable by 19.9.1988. In response to the Show Cause Notice, the respondent has entered appearance and filed his counter.3. Along with the Contempt Petition ('the Petition' for short), the complainants have produced the affidavit of complainant No. 1; the certified copy of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 84/75(Dt. Council of UBMC v. S.N. MATHIAS, ILR 1989 KAR 587) as Annexure-'A'; the copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 355/87 instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, as Annexu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-09-1992
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2424; 1992(2)KarLJ81
Shyamsundar, J.1. All these appeals arise out of a common order passed by the JMFC, Somwarpet, in C.C. No. 701/88 and two other connected cases in which the accused was a Co-operative Society called the Igoor Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha, Niyamitha represented by the President Sri Muthappa and Secretary Sri. Ramesh who were accused Nos. 1 and 3 along with Igoor VSSSN arraigned accused No. 2. They are currently the respondents in these appeals arising from an order of acquittal recorded by the learned JMFC at a prosecution launched against them by the Provident Fund Commissioner alleging default in filling of returns with the Provident Fund Commissioner touching the matter of collection of Provident Fund dues as enjoined by the Provident Fund Act.2. That in prosecutions under the Provident Fund Act touching any deviation or omission or commissions by any individual or institution covered by that Act had necessarily to start with the sanction of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-1992
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2833; ILR1992KAR747; 1992(2)KarLJ57
D.P. Hiremath, J.1. When the State appeal under S. 377, Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence imposed on the respondent-accused was taken up for hearing, it was brought to our notice that the respondent had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 74/85 before the Sessions Court at Bijapur against his conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicting him for the offence under S. 408, I.P.C. and sentencing him to R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The contention of the State is that in view of the gravity of the offence and amount involved, the respondent deserves enhanced punishment. When this appeal was pending before this Court, Criminal Appeal No. 74/85 came to be disposed of by the Sessions Court on 26-10-1991 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The learned Amicus Curiae representing the respondent urged that the procedure adopted by the Sessions Court after the case was committed to it under S. 347 of the Code o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-1992
Reported in : ILR1992KAR1786; 1992(2)KarLJ97
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J. 1. This Petition is directed against the order dated 1.1.1991 passed by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar in C.C.No. 1182/89 and the order dated 9.7.1991 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shimoga in Cr.R.P.No:5/91.2. By the order dated 1.1.1991, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class ('JMFC' for short), directed the issue of bailable warrants to charge sheet witnesses 1 to 3. By the order dated 7.1.1991, the learned JMFC directed the issue of non-bailable warrants to charge sheet witnesses 1 to 3. When these two orders were challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimoga in the aforesaid Criminal Revision Petition, the Sessions Judge passed the order referred to hereinabove, dismissing the application on the count that the order in question would amount to Interlocutory Order and that therefore, is not revisable having regard to provisions of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Thus, these orders are challenged before this Court.3. I have heard Sri. Rudreg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-20-1992
Reported in : 1995(75)ELT227(Kar); ILR1992KAR595; 1992(2)KarLJ25
S.P. Bharucha, C.J. 1. The order under appeal directs the Central Government (3rd appellant) to refund to the respondent (the writ petitioner) the excess duty paid by the latter under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, for the full period of three years and not only for the limited period of six months prior to the date of the refund application. 2. On behalf of the appellants, two contentions are raised. The first is based upon the Explanation to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act and the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court, Union of India v. Alembic Glass Industries, 1992 (61) E.L.T. 193 (Kar.) which deals with it. The judgment was delivered subsequent to the order under appeal. There is no dispute, and there cannot be, that the law laid down by the Full Bench must govern the refund to be made, so that the first appellant (the Assistant Collector of Central Excise) must take this judgment into account in determining what the amount of the refund due to the writ petitioner is. 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-20-1992
Reported in : 1992(60)ELT185(Kar)
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. The order under appeal directs the Central Government (the 3rd appellant) to refund to the respondent (the writ petitioner) the excess duty paid by the latter under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, for the full period of three years and not only for the limited period of six months prior to the date of the refund application.2. On behalf of the appellants, two contentions are raised. The first is based upon the Explanation to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act and the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court (Union of India v. Alembic Glass Industries, : 1992(61)ELT193(Kar) ) which deals with it. The judgment was delivered subsequent to the order under appeal. There is no dispute, and there cannot be, that the law laid down by the Full Bench must govern the refund to be made, so that the first appellant - (the Assistant Collector of Central Excise) must take this judgment into account in determining - what the amount of the refund due to the writ petitioner is.3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-23-1992
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2840; 1992(2)KarLJ85
Hiremath, J. 1. Both the appeals are by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of Sessions Judge at Bellary, finding A1 guilty under S. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and extending the benefit of S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ('P.O. Act' for short). 2. Brief facts are that on the night of 23-8-1986 PW 1 Anjaneyalu and the deceased G. P. Hugar who were working as constables in the Railway Protection Force ('RPF' for short) were on duty at Bellary Railway Yard. When both of the them were walking in the Railway Yard, two persons carrying railway sleepers were sighted by them. The deceased identified both of them as Dharma and Sidda - the present accused persons. They alerted another RPF constable Kamble who was on duty. On hearing the shouts from these constables, both the accused persons threw the sleepers and ran away, PW 1 and the deceased chased them from behind whereas Kamble came from the other side. Both the accused were then foun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-28-1992
Reported in : 1993(1)ALT(Cri)321; 1992CriLJ3835; ILR1993KAR987; 1992(2)KarLJ505
1. This appeal by the State arises out of and is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Karwar in S.C. No. 19/1989. The learned Sessions Judge, by an order made in that case on the 7th day of November, 1989, acquitted the accused of the offence levelled against him, acting under S. 334 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), extending to him the benefit of the exception contained in S. 84 of the Indian Penal code ('IPC' for short), but directed the accused to be detained in safe custody until the wife of the accused examined in the case as P.W. 1 arrived before Court to take charge of the accused as ordered therein. We are told that the wife did appear before Court and took charge of her husband on 13-11-89 after executing a bond assuring the safe conduct of the accused. The State considers the acquittal of the accused to be somewhat unmerited and not merely that, it takes exception to the procedure adopted by the learned Judge in endeavouring to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-29-1992
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT(Cri)661; ILR1992KAR667; 1992(2)KarLJ363
Hiremath, J.1. The accused-respondent was charge sheeted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Srirangapatna under Sections 279, 337 & 304A I.P.C. It was alleged against him that on 13-2-1987 at about 6.30 AM on Mysore-K.R. Sagar road, he was driving the lorry bearing No. CMS 4617 in a rash, and negligent manner and hit a bullock cart coming on the left side of the road and as a result the cart was completely damaged, two bullocks which were drawing the card died-due to the injuries sustained by them, two other bullocks which were tied behind were also injured and one B.K. Ramegowda who was also badly injured died later in K.R. Hospital, Mysore. Thus this was a case involving more offences than one from rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. After the accused was released on bail and case set down for hearing the proceedings show that the case which was to be taken in its usual course on 18-1-1988 was advanced to 5-1-1988 on the request made by the accused-respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-31-1992
Reported in : 1993CriLJ1316; ILR1992KAR2725; 1992(4)KarLJ240
Shyamsundar, J.1. The above petitions have been referred for disposal by a Division Bench by our brother R. Ramakrishna, J., under an order of reference made on the 18th March, 1991. The learned Judge after noticing that there was a marked conflict or divergence of views between two decisions of views between two decision of this Court both by two learned single Judges bearing on a point that had also arisen before him. His Lordship therefore felt the contending views in the two earlier decisions be taken note of by a Division Bench, the differences resolved and a conclusive opinion recorded in the matter. Therefore, acting under S. 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1964 the learned Judge made the reference as aforesaid. That is how these revision petitions came up for consideration and disposed by us. 2. But we notice along side that in a number of other criminal revision-petitions in which the point which we are required to consider in these petitions has also arisen. The Registry o...
Tag this Judgment!