Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-12-1977
Reported in : (1978)80BOMLR238
Vaidya, J.1. The above petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, raises a very important point with regard to the construction of Section 127(3)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. The petitioner, Ahamadalli, was the husband of the respondent No, 1, Rabiya alias Babijan, who filed Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 1974, on September 30, 1974, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Sangli, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 225 per month from her husband.3. She stated in the said application that she resided with the husband after the marriage from 1967 to 1971 and had a child from him. On April 27, 1972, her husband divorced her by publishing a Talaknama in Daily 'Navsandesh'. She was not consulted at the time of giving the said newspaper divorce. She stated that the husband had three to four acres of irrigated lands in village Alas in Shirol Taluka. He also carried on the business of crackers, poultry and dairy. Besides he was employed as a teach...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-04-1977
Reported in : (1979)81BOMLR64
Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution raises a question as to whether a Magistrate can pass, an order directing ;the accused to be taken into custody on his bail-bond being cancelled having regard to the fact that he is already in detention pursuant to an order passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 by the competent authority under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for brevity's sake called 'COFEPOSA').2. The facts which have given rises to this petition are not in dispute. The petitioner who is the Assistant Collector of Customs, Preventive Department, Bombay, filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, charging respondent No. 1 and some others with the offence of conspiracy to smuggle 10,054 foreign wrist watches of the value of Rs. 9,51,090, which were seized on April 9, 1969 from a room in Fernandez Building,, Dr. Deshmukh Lane, off V. P. Road Bombay, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-18-1977
Reported in : (1978)80BOMLR391
Gandhi, J.1. This is an application by the original accused-husband against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar ordering the petitioner to pay as husband the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per month from the date of the application. The application for maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code, which was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrigonda, was Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 1973. Thus the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, dated February 7, 1976, is directing the present petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10O per month from the date of the application, i.e. sometime in 1973. The present Criminal Revision Application was admitted and the rule was granted by my brother Kamat J. on July 16, 1976. At that time the petitioner applied for stay of the operation of the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the petitioner to pay at the rate of Rs. 100 per month from the date of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-18-1977
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1642
ORDERGandhi, J.1. This is an application by the original accused husband against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar ordering the petitioner to pay as husband the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month from the date of the application. The application for maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code, which was filed in the court of the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Shrigonda, was Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 1973. Thus the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, dated 7th February, 1976, is directing the present petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month from the date of the application, i.e. sometime in 1973. The present Criminal Revision Application was admitted and the rule was granted by my brother Kamat, J. on 16th July, 1976. At that time the petitioner applied for stay of the operation of the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the petitioner to pay at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-28-1977
Reported in : (1978)80BOMLR142
Vaidya, J.1. The Deputy Registrar High Court, Appellate Side, has placed before us certain matters with his report, dated February 21, 1977, seeking directions regarding the practice to be followed on the returns in such matters.2. The Criminal Department of the Appellate Side of this Court, noticed that in these matters while returning the final writs in criminal cases to this Court, the reports of the lower Courts are generally silent as regards the recovery of the fine from the accused persons, where the accused undergo the imprisonment in default of payment of fine, although the Courts have the power and the duty to decide whether the fine should be recovered under Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code, and hence the above report was placed before the Court for directions with report to the unexecuted writs and for modification or otherwise of instructions in the 'Criminal Manual'.3. Section 70 runs as follows:The fine, or any part thereof which remains unpaid, may be levied at any t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-04-1977
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1637
Jahagirdar, J.1. The petitioner in this Petition is the complainant in Criminal Case No. 47/s of 1976 pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay. That criminal case has been initiated on a complaint filed by the Petitioner charging the Respondent who is accused in that case with offences punishable Under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. From the evidence which has already come on record in the case and from the averments made in this Petition it appears that the Petitioner is a Journalist and the editor of a magazine called 'Mother India' while the Respondent accused is also a journalist being the editor of a Marathi magazine called 'Marmik.' The evidence also shows that the Respondent is a leader of an organization known as 'Shiv Sena' in Bombay.2. In the Marmik issue of 24th March 1974 there appeared an article containing several allegations against the Petitioner. From what has been shown to us of that article it appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-28-1977
Reported in : 1978CriLJ722
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an application Under Section 482 of the Cr.PC The petitioners are being tried in the court of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, 32nd Court, Esplanade, Bombay. The offences are in relation to the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958.2. The articles manufactured are electrical goods. So far as the manufacture of such articles is concerned, respondent No. 2 who has prosecuted the petitioners has no objection to the manufacture as such. The whole objection is to the use of certain trade mark. They are electrical goods like of which are manufactured by many persons in this country. The petitioners are also claiming that right to use the trade mark.3. In the criminal court the electrical goods were attached after the search was taken by the Police Officer. They are estimated at Rs. 1,00,000/- by respondent No. 2 but the petitioners say that they are worth Rs. 1,54,000/-. The petitioners applied to the Magistrate for releasing the goods for the purpose of being ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-30-1977
Reported in : 1978CriLJ72
Deshmukh, J.1. This application raises the question of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court Under Section 482 of the Cr.PC2. The three petitioners before the Court were original accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in the Sessions trial held in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 156 of 1975. As many as 7 accused persons were tried for various offences Under Sections 302, 326, 324, 323 read with Sections 149 and 34 IPC Ultimately by his judgment dated 24-11-1975 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, convicted accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 Under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC as also Under Section 147 IPC Under the first head of charge a sentence of two years' R.I. was imposed along with a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month. Under Section 147 IPC rigorous imprisonment for six months was imposed. Both the substantive sentences were to run concurrently.3. In the appeal carried to the High Court, being Criminal Appeal N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-06-1977
Reported in : (1979)81BOMLR87; 1978MhLJ260
Deshmukh, J.1. These twelve revision applications involve facts which are identical and points of law which are common. Hence they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The facts are not in dispute. There is a big godown in Broach Galli, Bombay. The open space inside the godown has been notionally divided into Galas and Gallis by drawing lines. The respondents have various galas as their places of business. To give the facts of Revision Application No. 85 of 1975, which are representative in character, it would appear that Gala No. 5 of 'L' Galli was notified by the respondent-accused as, his place of business as detailed in condition 2(a) of the licence issued to him as an authorised dealer under Clause 3 of the Maharashtra Foodgrain Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963. This is issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Every dealer under these provisions has to notify the place of business and get it entered upon his licence. If he wants to change ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-11-1977
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR257
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an application from Jail by the applicant who is convicted under Section 304 part (2) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 in default to suffer further R.I. for six months.2. The petitioner was arrested on January 31, 1975 on a charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. He was tried also under the same charge but as a result of the evidence before the Court, the offence was reduced to Section 304 part (2) and the above mentioned sentence was imposed upon him. The only effective prayer that is made in this matter is that the period of detention as an under-trial prisoner from January 31, 1975 to October 20, 1975 when he was convicted should be directed to be deducted from the sentence imposed upon him, under Section 428 of the present Code of Criminal Procedure. This is a right of the accused person and he should not have to make such an application at all. However, the peculiar manner in which the se...
Tag this Judgment!