Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-02-1997
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1693
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. As far as the Office objections are concerned, in view of the Affidavit, the delay is condoned. I.A.I is allowed.2. However, on merits, we have heard the learned S.P.P. whose only submission was the Trial Court ought to have ensured the presence of the witnesses which does not seem to have been done. From the record, we are unable to conclude that the non-appearance of the witnesses was due to any fault on the part of the prosecution. We however need to observe that this Court has come across many instances where the witnesses do not appear and on investigation, the reason that emerges is that the witnesses were unaware of the fact that their presence was required before the Court. In all such cases, it has unfortunately been revealed that the concerned authorities namely the Police have not served the summon on the witnesses for reasons that are more than obvious to us. The non-appearance of the witnesses undoubtedly results in the failure of the prosecution a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-06-1997
Reported in : AIR1997Kant172; 1997(2)KarLJ337
ORDER1. This writ petition calls in question an order dated 2nd of December, 1996 passed by the respondent-Director of Pre-University Education, annulling the II PUC Examination taken by the petitioner and debarring him from appearing in two examinations due to be held in April and October, 1997.2. The petitioner appeared in the II PUC Examination conducted by the Department of Pre-University Educaiion, results whereof were announced on the 1st of June, 1996. A statement of marks issued in his favour showed that the petitioner had secured 51 marks in Chemistry and 54 marks in Mathematics out of a total of 100 in each one of those subjects. Dissatisfied with the marks awarded to him, the petitioner made an application on 3-10-1996 for re-totalling. The request for rebottling to appears did not evoke any response from the Board, with the result (hat the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 27722/96 for a Mandamus directing the Board to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-1997
Reported in : II(1998)DMC254; ILR1997KAR609; 1998(2)KarLJ671
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. The strained husband and wife who are parties to this appeal, are in litigation which is pending in the Family Court at Bangalore. The appellant/wife has filed a suit for grant of various reliefs including the relief of maintenance. Upon her application, the Family Court had granted the temporary injunction against the respondent-husband restraining him from alienating the two plaint-schedule properties or subjecting them to any encumbrance pending disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the order of temporary injunction the respondent-husband filed a writ petition in this Court with prayer for quashing the order of the Family Court. Vide the order impugned in this appeal the learned Single Judge modified the order of the Family Courtwith direction that the said injunction will continue with respect to the residential house of the respondent-husband, but in regard to the shop he was permitted to sell the same subject to the condition of deposit and production of ori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-1997
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1971
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J. 1. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that since the offence complained of is under Section 395 I.P.C. which is an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions under the provisions of Section 395(2) I.P.C. it is mandatory for the Court taking cognizance to examine the complainant and all the witnesses on oath. From the record, petitioner's learned advocate demonstrates that this has not been done and he therefore contends that the taking of cognizance is faulty. The respondent's learned advocate submitted that if one were to look at Section 202 in its entity as also several of the reported decisions, the position that emerges is that the discretion is left to the trial Court to record the substances of the charge for purposes of deciding on the question of issue of process. Basically, what is contended is that this is not the stage where the trial has commenced and therefore if the complainant was examined and the Court came to the conclu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-27-1997
Reported in : 1997CriLJ3691; 1997(3)KarLJ208
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C. No. 13178/90 (P.C. 71/89) on the file of the III Addl. Munsiff & JMFC., M'lore. D. K.2. The brief facts of the case are the respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on the allegation that the petr. issued a cheque in a sum of Rs. 83,894/- towards repayment of the amount due to the respondent. The said cheque is dt. 31-7-1989. The respondent presented the cheque to the bank but the same was dishonoured by the bank with an endorsement 'stopped payment'. Thereafter on 13-9-1989 the respondent got issued a legal notice to the petitioner. The said legal notice was returned unserved with a postal share that 'addgressee refused'. Hence, the complaint was filed on 27-9-1989 before the Court. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence directed to issue process. The said order is questioned in this case.3. Heard the learned counsel for petr. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-27-1997
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)236; I(1998)DMC275; ILR1997KAR3149; 1997(3)KarLJ493
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is one of the most unhappy and disgraceful cases that have come before the Courts in recent times. The facts of the case make sad reading in so far as the appellant before us is a poor villager who was working as a coolie. The appellant's wife had died and he married one Sharadamma who already had a son through her previous marriage. Thereafter the accused and Sharadamma had three children and it is evident to us from the record that for a variety of reasons including the economic condition of the parties, that the relations between husband and wife got estranged. Sharadamma thereafter went to reside separately in a room at a village by the name of Henchinasiddapura and the accused continued to stay for sometime at Agaradahalli. Sharadamma had taken the three children with her and she was also residing with her son Sanjeeva. Sometime prior to the incident the accused who was reduced to desperate economic conditions, went to Sharadamma and asked her for help. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-28-1997
Reported in : [1998]94CompCas163(Kar); 1997(3)KarLJ271
M.P. Chinnappa, J.1. The brief facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner borrowed a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs from the respondent and in repayment of the said loan amount, the petitioner issued a cheque on May, 15, 1993 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. The said cheque when presented for encashment was returned with an endorsement 'exceeds arrangement'. Thereafter, the respondent got issued a legal notice on May 27, 1993 under RPAD and certificate of posting to the petitioner which was duly served on him. After receipt of the notice, the petitioner approached the complainant and requested him to present the cheque once again and assured that the bank will honour the cheque. Accordingly, the respondents presented the cheque once again which was dishonoured with an endorsement 'exceeds arrangement'. Hence, the respondent filed a complaint under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the alleged offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). Afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-31-1997
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1888
1. The instant appeal is filed by the accused to challenge the judgment and order of sentence dt. 25-3-91 passed by the Special Judge. Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore for the offence under Secs. 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, read with Sec. 19 of the 'Karnataka Edible Oils Act'. 2. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Smt. M. Gayathri appearing for the learned Counsel Sri C. H. Hanumantharaya and Sri B. H. Satish appearing for the respondent-State. I have also perused the records. 3. The facts in brief of the case are as follows : That on 2-6-87, the appellant being the owner of the Government Fair Price Depot situated in Hagalahally, sold 100 kgs. of palmolein oil which was supplied to him for the purpose of distribution to the ration card holders of Hagalahally Fair Price Depot to P.W. 1 - P. R. Veerachandrappa alias Vijaya Kumar without distributing the same to the ration card holders and the same was done by the appellant for the purpose of making profit and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-31-1997
Reported in : 1997(4)KarLJ627
1. All these criminal appeals are filed under Section 278(3) of Criminal Procedure Code by the Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Central Government with special leave to file the appeals against the judgment dated 12-4-1991 passed by the Additional Munsiff and JMFC, Bellary in CC Nos. 3178/86 to 3187/86 acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences under para 76(d) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 read with S. 14(1A) and 14-A(a) of Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952. 2. As the common points of law and facts are involved in all these criminal-appeals, all the matters are heard together and disposed of with this common order. 3. I heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellants in all the appeals and Sri C. M. Desai, Advocate appearing for the respondent/accused No. 2 in all the appeals. The respondent No. 1 is served with notices in all the appeals and it remained absent. 4. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-31-1997
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1122
1. All these criminal appeals are filed under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by the Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Central Government with special to leave to file the appeals against the judgment dated April 12, 1991, passed by the Additional Munsiff and JMFC Bellary, in C.C. Nos. 3187 of 1986, acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence under Para 76(d) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, read with Section 14(1-A) and 14-A(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous provision Act, 1952. 2. As common points of law and facts are involved in all these criminal appeals all the matters are heard together and disposed of with this common order. 3. I heard Sri Ashok Harnahalli, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellants in all the appeal, and Sri C. M. Desai, Advocate appearing for Respondent/accused No. 2 in all the appeals. Respondent No. 1 is served with notice in all the appeals and it...
Tag this Judgment!