Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-13-1980
Reported in : 19(1981)DLT104
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is an application by Delhi Administration to revise the order of the Chief Metropolitan Megistrate dated June 30, 1980. The respondent was arrested in connection with the murder of Bawa Gurbachan Singh and his body guard Pratap Singh. The investigation is still proceeding ; no charge sheet has been filed. (2) In the course of investigation autopsy was performed by the police surgeon, Dr. Bharat Singh. His two post-mortem reports and a medico legal examination report are at present in the custody of the inuestigation agency. The respondent made an application for copies of these documents on the ground that they are public documents and he is entitled to certified copies on payment of requisite fee. The Megistrate has ordered the prosecution to supply copies of the reports. Form his order the Administration has come in revision. (3) The matter first came before Charanjit Talwar J. He referred it to a larger bench in view of the importance of the question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-18-1980
Reported in : 19(1981)DLT229; 1981RLR250
Charaujit Talwar, J. (1) M/S. Emkay Exporters (P.) Ltd. and its Managing Director Shri V. Bhaskaran have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the legality of the order passed by Shri M. L. Mehta, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, on February 15,1980,declining their application seeking discharge for an offence under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (the Act). (2) The petitioners are being prosecuted by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') offence under Section 14 of the Act on the allegation that premises bearing No. B-55, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, are being put to a non-conforming use by them as' an office of the Company whereas the building can only be used for residential purpose as per the Master Plan/Zonal Plan of Delhi. (3) The facts leading to the prosecution are that the petitioner-Company is carrying on the business of manufacture and export of garments....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-11-1980
Reported in : 19(1981)DLT300
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This judgment shall dispose of two petitions, namely, Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 523 of 1980 and Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 527 of 1980. (2) The petitioner in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 523 of 1980, i.e. Pritam Singh, is the proprietor of M/s Navyug Press, Pleasure Garden Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, and the petitioner in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 527 of 1980, i.e. Amar Bharati, is a practitioner in Homoeupathic medicines and also writes books in Punjabi, besides doing translation of books from other languages to Punjabi on behalf of the National Book Trust and Sahitya Academy. One Sardar Kapur Singh, an ex-ICS officer approached the petitioner Pritam Singh for the printing of second enlarged edition of his book titled 'Sachi Saki' in Gurumukhi script. It is alleged that in this connection he gave some photographs to be published in the said edition. The petitioner published another book 'Sat Guru Tis Ka Naue' in which its author Amar Bharti quoted a Passage from an arti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-24-1980
Reported in : 1981CriLJ514
ORDER1. The petitioner herein Madan Lal was convicted for an offence under S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- by Shri J. D. Kapoor, metropolitan magistrate, Delhi. In default of payment of fine he was further awarded rigorous imprisonment for three months. The conviction and the sentence have been upheld by Shri J. D. Jain (then Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi) vide his judgment dated January, 16, 1978. 2. The prosecution allegations were that on August 4, 1976, at about 5.30 p.m. Food Inspector M. L. Chawla accompanied by another Food Inspector M. L. Sharma visited the petitioner's shop. They found 20 litres of milk contained in the drum bearing the inscription 'cow's milk.' After disclosing his identity, Food Inspector Chawla purchased 660 ml. of milk as sample for analysis on payment of Rs. 1,30 P. as its price vide the receipt Exhibit P.A. Prior to the payment of p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-18-1980
Reported in : 1981RLR152
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The question for decision is : What is the period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The petitioners-landlords filed an application for eviction of the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) rsad with Section 25-B of the Act which was dismissed by the Controller on 29th April, 1978. An appeal filed before the Rent Control Tribunal on 3rd July, 1978 was dismissed on 10th January, 1980 on the ground that no appeal was maintainable under Section 25-B(8) of the Act. The petitioners applied for certified copy of the Controller's order on 11th January, 1980 and it was ready on 27th February, 1980. The present revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Act was filed on 17th May, 1980. An application C.M. No. 1724 of 1980) was also filed by the petitioners under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act praying that the time spent for prosecuting the appeal before the Rent Control Trib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-05-1980
Reported in : 1981CriLJ928; 19(1981)DLT212
M.L. Jain, J. (1) This is a petition moved by the complainantSuresh Kumar under sub-section (6) of s. 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for transfer of the case State v. Om Pal Singhand others, under Ss. 364, 365, 342, 506, T.P.C., from the court ofShri P. K. Bahri, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, to some other competentcourt.(2) Upon an F.I.R. lodged with the A. C. Police (Crime) on 21/08/1978, at 10.45 P.M., a case was instituted against the accusedrespondents on the allegations that on 20/08/1978, at about10.30 P.M. in the night, the complainant Suresh Kumar and one MissSushma Chaudhary were going in a car No. Brp 651 towards JamunaBazar within the jurisdiction of P. S. Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Theywere invested by about ten-eleven persons who emerged out of twotaxis and drove them away to a big building on the roadside. Theywere beaten, detained and forced to write some letters and pose forphotographs. The identity of only three abductors could be established.They were, (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-31-1980
Reported in : 1981CriLJ422
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.1. This is an appeal by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Corporation) from an order of acquittal passed in favor of the respondent by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dated 28th August, 1978. 2. A complaint was filed by the Corporation against the respondent under Sections 4 and 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1954 in the court of the Magistrate. This was a done on behalf of the Corporation by Shri R. N. Gujral, Assistant Municipal Prosecutor. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent. From his decision the Corporation appeals to this Court. 3. Mr. Monga on behalf of the Municipal Corporation does not dispute that this appeal was not filed within 60 days. It was filed much after the period of 60 days. Now sub-section (5) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides that : '(5) No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-29-1980
Reported in : 19(1981)DLT353; 1981RLR4
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) Whore there is no vision, the people perish. (Bible O.T. Xxix : 18). In 1957 the Parliament passed the Delhi Development Act (the Act). It came into force on December 30, 1957. The Act set up a corporate body known as the Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A.) to ensure planned development of this fast expanding city of Delhi. The object of D.D.A. is 'to promote and secure development of Delhi according to plan' (s. 6). The Act required D.D.A. to carry out, as soon as may be, a civic survey and to prepare a Master Plan for Delhi (the Plan). The civic survey was carried out. The Plan was prepared. It came into force on September 1,1962. The Plan, the Act says, shall serve as 'a basic pattern of framework' within which the proper development of Delhi in to be carried out. An image of the future is the core of this Plan. The planners are trying to express the vision in terms of recognisable subject matter. They vision what was once a tiny town as the future metr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-16-1980
Reported in : 1981CriLJ667a
ORDER1. On April 29, 1975, at about 10.30 or 11.00 p.m., Dalel Singh (P.W. 2) and Tale Ram (Kale Ram ?) (P.W. 6) were sitting on a cot eating their meal outside the house of Dalel Singh in village Matiala, P.S. Najafgarh, Pataso (P.W. 5), wife of his brother Hem Chander, was cooking the meal, Chandro (P.W. 8) his sister, was sitting near Pataso and his brother Balwan Singh (P.W. 1) was serving the meal. Then arrived the accused, Jagmohan held Dalel Singh, while Rajbir Singh stabbed him with a knife; when Tale Ram intervened, Jagmohan stabbed him. Upon hearing the cries of the injured, Balwan Singh, Pataso and Chandro rushed out of the house. Desa (P.W. 13) who was returning home also reached there. They saw the occurrence, Raj Singh (P.W. 7) took the injured to the Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, after midnight. Dr. I. S. Rao (P.W. 3) examination Tale Ram, Dr. P. K. Julka (P.W. 4) examined Dalel Singh. Tale Ram was found to have sustained the following injuries :- (1) Incised wound 2.5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-16-1980
Reported in : 19(1981)DLT206
M.S. Joshi, J. (1) On the death of Mrs. Gurmeet wife of Avtar Singh, a case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . was registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, and on completion of the investigation a charge-sheet for trial under the said provision of law was put up against Ranjit Kaur wife of Kartar Singh and mother-in-law of the deceased. Later on, Mohan Singh lodged a complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Shahdara and attributed the murder of Gurmeet to Avtar Singh and Kartar Singh aforesaid, apart from Ranjit Kaur. This complaint was instituted on 9.5.1979 and on 19-5-1979 Magistrate committed Ranjit Kaur alone to the Court of Session. It was represented to Shri R. L.Chugh, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, with whom the complaint mentioned above was pending that in view of the dictates of Section 210(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the two persons other than Ranjit Kaur accused in the complaint be also committed to the Court of Sess...
Tag this Judgment!