Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-01-1981
Reported in : 1982(1)BomCR148; (1981)83BOMLR362
B.J. Rele, J.1. This is an application for anticipatory bail made by the petitioner on an apprehension that he would be arrested on an accusation for having committed offences under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(2) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and in respect of which offences the Delhi Police Establishment, C.B.I., Delhi, have filed and F.I.R. on 6th March 1981 under their C.R. No. 2/81-SIU-I/SIC/CBI/SPE/New Delhi.2. The petitioner is the Chairman of Industrial Consulting Bureau Limited, (hereinafter referred to as 'I.C.B. Ltd.'), having its registered office at Bombay and branch at Delhi. He is also the Advisor of a company by name Harshadray Pvt. Ltd. This company also has its registered office at Bombay and has its office at New Delhi. These two companies are specifically mentioned in this order, although the petitioner has set out in his petition the company in which he is the Managing Director and a number of companies in which he is the Director...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-30-1981
Reported in : 1984(16)ELT202(AP)
1. This appeal by the Central Government is preferred against the judgment of acquittal of the accused of the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the Special Judge for Economic Offences in C.C. No. 1 of 1980. 2. The case for the prosecution is : On 13-3-1974 the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs accompanied by his Inspectors searched the house No. 5-8-505/A/2 at Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad, belonging to accused 1 and 2 in the presence of mediators. The first accused is the son of the second accused. In the course of the search 56 bottles of liquor in the living room of the ground floor which was in the exclusive occupation of the first accused and 12 bottles of liquor in the dicky of the car bearing registration No. APG 4334 belonging to the second accused were found secreted. Entertaining a reasonable belief that the said bottles (M.Os. 1 to 68) are liquor of foreign origin and smuggled and, therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-30-1981
Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365
..... inquiry and determine the validity of the objections to its production, and that necessarily involves an inquiry into the question as to whether the evidence relates to an affair of state under. section 123 or not. (emphasis mine)442. duncan v. cammell, laird & co. (1942) ac 624 was also noticed by this court and it was pointed put that it was not necessary to consider the true nature and effect of the principle as adumbrated in that case, because in india we are governed by the provisions of section 162 of the crpc which ..... directed the municipality to implement one of them. the standing of the local residents to move the magistrate was recognised since section 133 of criminal p. c. expressly conferred such right on them.16. there is ..... itself' (quoted by curt mathews, st lewis post-despatch feb. 26, 1973, section 1-12b p. 1).1174. now a few words about the legitimacy of ..... used in various articles to determine the context, the purport and the intention of the founding fathers of the constitution.176. take, for instance, article 127 which expressly deals with previous consent of the ..... passed by the president of india under article 222, the judge so transferred dies a civil death in the original high court where he was appointed and takes a new birth in the new high ..... them from all objective standards keeping in view the possible inconvenience and hardship likely to be caused to the judge and comparable public interest which necessitates transfer and thereafter puts forward the proposal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-28-1981
Reported in : AIR1982SC710; 1982CriLJ340; 1981(4)SCALE1904; (1982)1SCC271; [1982]2SCR272
Chandrachud, C.J.1. This is a group of Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the National Security Ordinance, 2 of 1980, and certain provisions of the National Security Act, 65 of 1980, which replaced the Ordinance. Writ Petition No. 5724 of 1980 is by Shri A.K. Roy, a Marxist member of the Parliament, who was detained under the Ordinance by an order passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad, on the ground that he was indulging in activities which were prejudicial to public order. Ten members of the Parliament, one an Independent and the others belonging to various political parties in opposition applied for permission to intervene in the Writ Petition on the ground that since the Ordinance-making power of the President is destructive of the system of Parliamentary democracy, it is necessary to define the scope of that power. We allowed the intervention. So did we allow the applications for intervention by the People's Union of Civil Liberties...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-24-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Cal152,1982(1)CHN73,86CWN329
ORDERAnil K. Sen, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the defendants in Title Suit No. 362 of 1980 of the Court of the learned Munsif, Uluberia on a revisional application and is directed against an appellate order dated June 29. 1981, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. 3rd Court, Howrah, in Misc. Appeal No. 28 of 1981 thereby affirming an order of temporary injunction granted by the learned Munsif as against the defendants. The Rule is being contested by the plaintiff/opposite party, the Zilla Parishad, Howrah.2. It is not in dispute that by a registered deed of lease dated December 10, 1906, the District Board of Howrah, the predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiff granted permanent lease in respect of 8 cottahs 9 chittaks and 35 square feet of barrow pit land described within boundaries in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the present defendants. It would appear from the boundary of the leasehold land as set out in the said deed of lease that but for a village pathwa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-22-1981
Reported in : [1986]59CompCas654(AP)
Chennakesav Reddy, J.1. The question that arised for consideration in this criminal revision case is, whether the non-filing of a return of deposits by the companies under rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, is a continuing offence punishable under rule 11 of the said Rules. 2. The Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, filed a complaint before the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, alleging that the first accused company and accused Nos. 2 to 4, who are the directors of the first accused company, have failed to file with him before June 30, 1979. a return of deposits for the year 1978 under rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called 'the Deposit Rules'), and, therefore, they rendered themselves liable for punishment under rule 11 of the said Rules. 3. The accused contended that the complaint filed against them was barred by limitation under section 468, Cr. PC. 4. The learned Special Judge held ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-22-1981
Reported in : 1982CriLJ1611
ORDER1. Cr.M.P. 4496 of 1978 - This is a petition filed under S. 482 Crl.P.C. by the accused in C.C. 23771 of 1978 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras to call for the records in that case and quash the proceedings. 2. According to the private complaint filed by the complainant, who is the respondent in this petition, he is a shareholder in the India Cements Ltd. and accused 1 to 5, who are petitioner 1 to 5 herein, are the directors of the said public limited company which is having its registered office at Dhun Buildings, No. 175/1 Mount Road, Madras 2. The sixth accused, who is the sixth petitioner herein, is the brother of the first accused and he is the General Manager of the factory of the said company at Sankaranagar, Talaiyuthu, Tirunelveli. The seventh accused, who is the seventh petitioner herein, is the Secretary of the said company. According to the complaint, accused 1 to 7 have entered into a conspiracy at Madras to defraud the funds of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-21-1981
Reported in : 1982CriLJ683
ORDERKu. P. Janaki Amma, J.1. On 7-2-1981 the first respondent filed a complaint before the judicial Magistrate of First Class, Theli-paramba alleging that the five petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed criminal trespass, theft and other offences. The Magistrate, on receipt of the complaint, passed the following order: 'Forwarded to the S. I. of Police, Irikur. for investigation and for report Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Call on 23-2-1981'. Crime No. 8 of 1981 was registered on the basis of the complaint. The police, after investigation, referred the case as false. A report to that effect was presented before court on 13-4-1981. The Magistrate, on receipt of the report, posted the case for taking the sworn statement of the complainant. The sworn statement was recorded on 7-5-1981 and the case was being proceeded with as per the procedure in Chap. XV of Criminal P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The present petition filed Under Section 482 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-18-1981
Reported in : 1982(2)BomCR205
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 4 years by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Case No. 67/78 decided on 18-9-1979.2. The allegation of the prosecution was that on 28-6-1978 at village Warud the appellant had stabbed one Pralhad Govinda Chavan with a knife in order to cause his death.3. The relevant facts of the prosecution case may be narrated briefly in order to understand the circumstances under which the impugned incident took place.4. One Chimanaji Sambhaji Gawande had owned agricultural land and house at village Warud. His first wife Walambi died without any issue. He then married Ambabai from whom he had two daughters. He then re-married one Parvata who was already having six sons living from her first husband. The present appellant Ramchandra is the son of Parvata from her first husband. After Parvata's marriage with Chi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-18-1981
Reported in : [1983]144ITR506(All); [1982]11TAXMAN151(All)
Mohammad Wahajuddin, J.1. This application has been moved by the three applicants, namely, Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, Ayodhya Prasad and Ram Autar, under Section 482, Cr. PC, praying that the Criminal Case No. 2430 of 1980. (State through Sri B.K. Srivastava, Income-tax Officer, 'B' Ward, Varanasi v. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal), pending in the court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, may be quashed.2. A number of grounds were taken but during the arguments, I have been addressed only on one point which concerns applicants Nos, 2 and 3. Admittedly, there was a discrepancy of Rs. 18,003 in the original return for the assessment year 1973-74 submitted on 30th July, 1973, and the revised statement of return submitted much later on September 5, 1975. Prima facie, a wrong statement was submitted earlier and it was submitted that this was due to a bona fide mistake in calculation. Whether the account was delivered knowing or believing it to be false or not believing it to be true as to at...
Tag this Judgment!