Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE19h DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.24832 OF2022(GM - POLICE) BETWEEN: MR.KULDEEP ADVOCATE AGED ABOUT23YEARS S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR SHETTY RESIDING AT PUTHILA VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K.DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560 001 BY SECRETARY. 2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER PUNJALKATTE POLICE STATION2REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGLAURU 560 001. 3 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 575 001. 4 . SUTHESH K.P., SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUNJALKATTE POLICE STATION D.K. DISTRICT 575 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTIONS TO THE STATE OF KARNATAKA / RES...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom10
West, J.1. The seven prisoners were committed to the Poona Court of Session for trial on the charges of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of a cutting instrument (Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code) and of house-breaking by night with intent to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment (Section 457). To this the Sessions Judge added the charge of dacoity under Section 395. The jury unanimously brought in a verdict of not guilty on all these charges; but the Sessions Judge, being of a different opinion, referred the case to the High Court under Section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The portion of Section 263, under which we have to deal with this case, runs thus: 'The High Court shall deal with the case so submitted as it would deal with an appeal, but it may acquit or convict the accused person on the facts, as well as law, without reference to the particular charges as to which the Court of Session may have disagreed with the verdict, and if it convict him, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom15
West, J.1. After commenting on the evidence and expressing the opinion of the Court against the acquittal of Narayan and Sitabai and in favour of that of Maruti, proceeded thus:2. The acquittal of this prisoner (Maruti) makes it necessary to consider a point of law arising from it, and urged by Mr. Pandurang Balibhadra for the prisoners Narayan and Sitabai. He contended that the principal offender having been acquitted, his clients could not be convicted of abetment, and referred us to the case of Reg. v. Chaman Bapaji, noted under Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code in West's Edition of the Acts and Regulations. It was there held by Sir Richard Couch, late Chief Justice of this Court, and another Judge, on the 22nd of January 1864, that the principal offender being acquitted, a second prisoner could not, in the same trial, be convicted of abetment of the same offence. This ruling was in accordance with the state of the English law as it existed when an accessory could refuse to plead...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom50
1. We do not think the conviction of dacoity can be sustained. That was a substantive offence completed as soon as perpetrated at Velanpor, although, had Velanpor been in British territory, the subsequent acts in the process of taking away the property might, in the legal sense as they would have the same legal character, have coalesced with the first and principal one so as to give jurisdiction under Section 67 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But we think the conviction may be altered to one of retaining stolen property known to have been obtained by dacoity (Indian Penal Code, Section 412), and the sentences upheld. The retaining is included in the more comprehensive charge viewed as an abstract accusation of an act attended with a certain intent or consciousness, and the conception of dacoity being independent of the place where it was committed suffices to cover what is embraced within it, though the latter was an act done in British territory. The retaining was in British terri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom64
1. The accusation made against the accused in this case constituted it a warrant-case falling under the provisions of Section 213 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate, Mr. Middleton, after an arrangement had been come to between the parties, divided the property between them and dismissed the complaint. By 'dismiss the case' we understand the Magistrate to have meant the same thing as is indicated by Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where it says that the Magistrate, if he finds that no offence has been proved against the accused person, shall discharge him.' 'Dismissal of a complaint' is a phrase properly applicable only to a summons case under Chapter XVI of the Code, and incapable of being applied, as Section 212 shows, to any complaint, 'except in so far as it refers to a summons case.' The provisions of Section 215 are highly useful in many cases. They enable a Magistrate, when circumstances make it expedient, to dispose of an accusation without ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Horst - 93 U.S. 291 (1876) U.S. Supreme Court Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Horst, 93 U.S. 291 (1876) Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Horst 93 U.S. 291 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA Syllabus 1. When instructions are asked in the aggregate and there is anything exceptionable in either of them, the court may properly reject the whole. 2. It is the settled law in this Court that if the charge given by the court below covers the entire case and submits it properly to the jury, such court may refuse to give further instructions. 3. In an action against a railroad company for injuries received by a passenger upon its road, it is not error for the court to instruct the jury, "that a person taking a cattle train is entitled to demand the highest possible degree of care and diligence, regardless of the kind of train he takes." 4. The rule of law that the standard of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Windsor v. McVeigh - 93 U.S. 274 (1876) U.S. Supreme Court Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274 (1876) Windsor v. McVeigh 93 U.S. 274 ERROR TO THE CORPORATION COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VA. Syllabus 1. A sentence of a court, pronounced against a party without hearing him or giving him an opportunity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. 2. The jurisdiction acquired by the seizure of property in a proceeding in rem for its condemnation for alleged forfeiture is not to pass upon the question of forfeiture absolutely, but to pass upon that question after opportunity has been afforded to its owner and parties interested to appear and be heard upon the charges for which the forfeiture is claimed. To that end, some notification of the proceedings, beyond that arising from the seizure, prescribing the time within which the appearance must be made is essential. 3. In proceedings before the district court i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom82
West, J.1. In arrest of those proceedings (the criminal proceedings), which are now pending, Jagjivan applies to us and urges, inter alia, that the proceedings before the Subordinate Judge of Thana were coram non judice, he having no authority to attach and sell immoveable property in execution of the decree of the Bombay Court of Small Causes, which itself could proceed against moveable property only. It was argued by Mr. Branson on his behalf that Section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not give to the Subordinate Judge greater power in execution matters than the Court which passed the decree.2. We cannot say why, when the Legislature enacted Section 287 of the Civil Procedure Code, it allowed Section 78 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act IX of 1850 to stand. Looking, however, to the wording of the former enactment, we find that it runs as follows: 'The copy of any decree, or of any order for execution, when filed in the Court to which it shall have been transmitted for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom147
West, J.1. Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that 'in the case of offences which may lawfully be compounded, injured persons may compound the offence out of Court or in Court with the permission of the Court,' and that 'such withdrawal from the prosecution shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused person.' The case before us is one in which an accusation of voluntarily causing grievous hurt has been compounded with the permission of the Court; and the question is, whether this is a case of an offence 'which may lawfully be compounded. '2. The remedies provided by the law for wrongs which it recognizes as affording a proper ground for the exercise of the State's coercive power, may be classed generally as criminal and civil. The latter apply properly to wrongs not regarded as so flagrant and so dangerous to society at large as to call for the spontaneous interference of the State. The general well-being of the community is sufficiently protected by the exerci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal357
Phear, J.1. This case now comes before us by reason of its having been removed to this Court from the Court of the Magistrate of Calcutta, Northern Division, by an order made under Section 147 of the High Courts' Criminal Procedure Act.2. The learned Standing Counsel, on behalf of the Crown, objected that the order had been irregularly made, because the Crown was not served with notice of the application for it, and was not given an opportunity of being heard upon that application. We are of opinion, however, that when, as in the present case, a conviction has been arrived at by the Magistrate, and the petitioner is actually suffering imprisonment there under, it is within the discretion of this Court to order for sufficient prima facie cause shown, on the application of the prisoner, that the case be removed, without notice to the Crown. We intimated our readiness to give time to the Standing Counsel, if he required it, for the purpose of this hearing, but he said he was quite prepare...
Tag this Judgment!