Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jun-07-1974
Reported in : 1975CriLJ846
ORDERJagjit Singh, J.1. By his order dated May 18, 1974, the Sessions Judge, Delhi, admitted Vipin Kumar Jaggi to bail on his furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rupees 10,000/- each and executing personal bonds for the like amount. For getting the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Shri F. S. Gill, set aside the present petition was filed on behalf of State.2. On September 28, 1973, F. I. R. No. 571 was registered in Police Station, Kamla Market, Delhi. That was on the report lodged by Inder Singh Rana, Cashier of the Union Bank of India,. Chandni Chowk, Branch, After investigation a police report or Challan was submitted on April 25, 1974. Earlier to that date an incomplete report had also been. submitted.3. According to the police report: or the challan five persons, namely, Shawar Khan, Boby alias Sunil Batra, Ravi Kapur, Hariit Singh and Vipin Kumar Jaggi had entered into a criminal conspiracy and were responsible for dacoity committed on September 28, 1973, when-, after murde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-1974
Reported in : ILR1975Delhi608; 1975RLR260
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) The two petitioners herein, keshav Chand and Ashok Kumar, were challaned before the Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Delhi, for offences under sections 379, 420, 411. 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code . The prosecution case against the petitioners according to the challan was that they had committed theft of a fiat car belonging to Shri K. T. Mirchandani on the night between 26th and 27th April, 1971 when the car was parked outside the Iii class waiting room of the Railway Station New Delhi, and that after changing the registration number of the car and making false entries in the registration certificate, the petitioners had sold the car at Nagpur to one Suresh Khanna for Rs. 15,000.00 . When the case came up turn consideration b(2) Under section 177 Criminal Procedure Code 'EVERY offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed.'(3) Sections 178 to 184 Criminal Procedure Code . are exce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-18-1974
Reported in : ILR1975Delhi668; 1975RLR246
Pritam Singh Safeer, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the acquittal of the respondent which he achieved in terms of the judgment passed by the trial court on 31st of October, 1967. The case against the respondent was that Public Witness . I Karan Singh Food Inspector had purchased from him on the 5th of October, 1966, 450 grams of red chillies and analysis of one of the samples thereof disclosed that they were adulterated. The Food Inspector gave that notice before making the purchase and paid the price and we have seen the receipt in respect thereof. He then proceeded to act in accordance with section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereafter called 'the Act'). The quantity purchased was divided into three samphes, which were transferred to three separate bottles which were sealed. One of them was given to the respondent. We have seen Exhibit P.C. wich document was executed by the respondent not only by signing it but also by thumb-marking it. This document has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-13-1974
Reported in : 1975CriLJ841; 1975RLR169
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) Feeling dissatisfied with the order dt. 25-11-1974, by which Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi had dismissed revision petition filed by petitioner I made the order directing that record pertaining to the revision petitioner dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge as well as the Metropolitan Magistrate, be immediately collected. (2) I have gone through the record pertain- ing to the revision petition as well as that which pertains to the original proceedings, which were held by the Metropolitan Magis- trate. At my instance the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has read out the evidence of the two witnesses who were ex- amined at the trial. Public Witness . 1 Rashid Ahmed stated in his examination-in-chief that he had seen the petitioner in police custody. Permission was sougt to cross-examine PW1. In the course of that cross-examination Public Witness . 1 stated that the knife Exhibit Public Witness . 1 had not been recovered in his presence. Besides PW. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-08-1974
Reported in : ILR1975Delhi817
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) The S.H.O., Haus Qazi, Delhi sent a report dated 12-3-1974 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kamla Market to the effect that on 11-3-1974 , about 1.00 P.M. the petitioner and some other persons were found standing in batches of two near Farash Khana in which locality a communal riot had occurred some days previously and that they were blaming the members of the opposite community for pausing the riot and were also threatening to use force A against them and to indulge in further rioting. It was also stated in the report that they did not disperse even when asked to do so by the police and that, thereforee, in order to avoid an imminent breach of the peace they were arrested by the police and were being produced before the le,arned Magistrate. It was also stated in the report that proceedings may be instituted against them under section 107 Cr.P.C.(2) On receipt of this report, the learned Magistrate passed orders under section 112 Criminal Procedure Code . read wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-1974
Reported in : ILR1975Delhi525
V.D. Mishra, J.(1) Whether an Additional District Magistrate of Delhi, who has been invested with all the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure and under any other law for the time being in force under Section 10(2) of the Code, can pass orders of externment under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (No. Xxii of 1951), as extended to Delhi? is the question which falls for decision in the two criminal writs Nos. 20 and 23 of 1974. (2) The relevant facts of the two petitions may now be noted. Avtar Singh alias Tari is the petitioner in Criminal Writ No. 20 of 1974. He was served with a notice dated June 21, 1974 (Annexure -1) issued by Shri Navin Chawla, Additional District Magistrate (South), Delhi, calling upon him to show cause why proceedings under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, as extended to Delhi, should not be taken against him and he be not ex- tcrned from the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi for a per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-1974
Reported in : ILR1975Delhi811
Dalip K. Kapur, J.(1) The learned counsel for the applicant has referred to several reported cases, to show that interim maintenance can be ordered during the pendency of a suit for maintenance. Those authorities for the purposes of reference, are reported as : AIR1955Mad571 Muniammal v. P.M. Ranganatha Nayagar and another : AIR1968Cal305 , Smt. Gouri Gupta Chandhury v. Tarani Gupta Chaudhury, : AIR1968Cal405 , Nemal Chand Jain v. Smt. Lila Jain and : AIR1968Cal567 , Tarini Gupta Chowdhury v. Smt. Gouri Gupta Chowdhury. The present application has been moved during the pendency of a pauper application and the learned counsel for the respondent urges that the authorities show that interim maintenance can be ordered in a suit but not during the pendency of a pauper application. The learned counsel for the respondent has offered to pay interim maintenance @Rs. 200.00 per month starting from the date of institution of the suit in this Court. This offer is without prejudice to the eventual ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-1974
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1376; ILR1975Delhi492b
M.R. Ansari, J. (1) The petitioner Daya Shankar Kapoor has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus or any other suitable order or direction for his release from detention by virtue of an order dated 24th September,1974 issued by the District Magistrate, Delhi, under section 3(l)(c)read with section 3(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act,1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').(2) The President of India in exercise of powers under Article 123(1) of the Constitution promolgated the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974 (No. 2 of 1974) to amend the Act. By the said ordinance the following clause was added to section 2 of the Act :- '(CC)'smuggling' has the same meaning as in clause (39) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.'THEfollowing clause was also added to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act :-'(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-21-1974
Reported in : 1975RLR12
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This petition has arisen out of the complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, Delhi Administration, under section 27(a) read with section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereafter called 'the Act'). (2) The Drugs Inspector stated in the complaint that he had recovered items 1 to 23 mentioned in the recovery memo which were drugs within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Act and that had been done on the 23rd of February, 1972. The Drugs were recovered from the premises of the petitioner. Certain bills and cash-memos were also recovered which disclosed the sources from which the drugs had been purchased by the petitioner. A recovery memo was prepared in respect thereof. The Drugs Inspector made inquiries from the firms from which the drugs bad been purchased by the petitioner. In paragraph 6 the complaint alleged :- 'THATthe accused had no license to sell, stock and exhibit for sale and distribute drugs at his premises mentioned above and that he is not a Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-21-1974
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1075
ORDERP.S. Safeer, J.1. This petition has arisen out of the complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector. Delhi Administration, under Section 27(a) read with Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940(hereafter called 'the Act').2. The Drugs Inspector stated in the complaint that he had recovered Items 1 to 23 mentioned in the recovery memo which were drugs within the mean-ins of Section 3(b) of the Act and that had been on the 23rd of February. 1972. The Drugs were recovered from the premises of the petitioner. Certain bills and cash-memos were also recovered which disclosed the sources from which the drugs had been purchased by the petitioner. A recovery memo was prepared in respect thereof. The Drugs Inspector made inquiries from the firms from which the drugs had been purchased by the petitioner. In paragraph 6 the complaint alleged:That the accused had no license to sell, stock and exhibit for sale and distribute drugs at his premises mentioned above and that he is not a Register...
Tag this Judgment!