Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-08-1983
Reported in : 1984(16)ELT190(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. Few facts are to be noticed in order to appreciate the relevant circumstances under which this group of Misc-Criminal Applications has been placed before us. 2. The Customs Officers of Ahmedabad effected seizure of gold worth Rs. 1.40 crores besides miscellaneous foreign goods worth about Rs. 40,000/- Indian currency of Rs. 72,766.00 ps. and a pistol of American made with six live cartridges and a couple of vehicles from bungalow No. 3, at Shwethpark Society, Budharpura, in the city of Ahmedabad on 15/16 April, 1982. In connection with this seizure several persons suspected to have been connected with the case were arrested and produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, from time to time. Mohamad Akhtar Hussain, alias 'Kadar Ahmed Vagher Bhatti', applicant herein in this group of applications who is alleged to be the chief culprit in this case was arrested at about 18.30 hrs. on April 20, 1982 by the Customs Officers as they suspected him to be guilty of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-18-1983
Reported in : 1984CriLJ545; 23(1983)DLT499; 1983RLR554
ORDER1. The Peoples' Patriotic Front New Delhi acting through its Executive Chairman, Smt. Nirmala Prasad (since then dead) filed a complaint under Sections 109, 120-B, 161, 165A, 409 and 420, IPC in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on 3-8-1982 against the following persons : (1) Shri K. K. Birla, Chairman. Hindustan Times Ltd., (2) Shri Kamal Nath M.P., (3) Shri Harish Jain, Director. Hindustan Monark (P) Ltd., (4) Hindustan Monark (P) Ltd., (5) Directors of Hindustan Monark (P) Ltd., (6) M/s Kuo Oil, Hong Kong, (7) Directors of M/s Kuo Oil, Hong Kong, and (8) Shri P. C. Sethi, the then Union Minister for Petroleum and Chemicals. Smt. Nirmala Parsad was examined on oath on 3-9-1982 and the case was adjourned for remaining evidence. She died on 13-10-1982. On 27-11-1982 Shri Jaya Narain moved two applications, one that he be substituted in her place, and two the concerned file of the Department of Petroleum be summoned. The learned Magistrate was of the view that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-11-1983
Reported in : AIR1983SC439; 1983CriLJ839; 1983(1)Crimes797(SC); 1983(1)SCALE274; (1983)2SCC372; [1983]2SCR537
D.A.Desai, J. 1. Respondents Lakshmi Brahman and Naval Garg were suspected of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC. Both of them surrendered before the Magistrate on November 2, 1974 and were taken into custoday. The investigation was then in progress. The investigating officer failed to submit the charge-sheet against them within a period of 60 days as contemplated by Sub-section 2 of Section 167 of 1973 Code prior to its amendment by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1978 which enlarges the period from 60 to 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. In this case we are concerned with the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Cr. P.C. 1973 prior to its amendment in 1978. It appears that the Investigating Officer failed to submit the charge-sheet within the prescribed period and according to the High Court till ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-30-1983
Reported in : [1986]17ITD372(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri V. Balasubramanian, Vice President - The assessee-trust is assessed in the status of an association of persons. The assessees claim for relief under section 80L of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was disallowed by the ITO on the ground that such relief is allowable only to individuals and HUF and in those exceptional cases of husband and wife of the formerly Portuguese territories.2. On appeal, the AAC held that the true status of the assessee ought to be individual and not an AOP. He, therefore, held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80L. The department has come up on appeal against this order of the AAC.3. The learned counsel for the department, taking us through the provisions of section 80L, section 164 of the Act and the charging section, etc., has pointed out that the status taken by the ITO of the assessee of an AOP is the correct status in the present case. The AAC, therefore, erred in altering the status in his appellate order of indivi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-30-1983
Reported in : (1984)2GLR816
R.J. Shah, J.1. The present Special Criminal Application is directed against the order dated 21st November 1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 113 of 1973 allowing the said revision application which in turn was directed against the order dated 20th October 1983 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 383 of 1983 wherein the application for search warrant under Section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed.2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to state a few facts in brief. Present petitioner Mayabhai has a daughter by name Vijuben. An agricultural labourer in his farm by name Dulabhai Amrabhai developed relations with the said Vijuben who is alleged to be a minor and kidnapped her from her father's custody. The said Dhulabhai claims that he has married Vijuben and Vijuben also delivered a female child in the month of September 1983. Petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-29-1983
Reported in : ILR1984KAR1064
ORDER1. This Criminal Petition is one under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 (for short the 'Code') presented by a certain Ramappa against the order dt. 15-12-1983 passed by the J.M.F.C. Kundgol on a private complaint made by him under S. 200 of the Code against respondents 2 to 4, a Sub-Inspector and two Police Constables attached to Kundgol Police Station of Dharwad District for offences punishable under Ss. 451, 323, 325, 352, 341, 342, 379, 504 and 506 I.P.C. in Private Complaint No. 47/1983 directing the Superintendent of Police, Dharwad District, to investigate the complaint under S. 156(3) of the Code and make a report. It may be stated here that the Magistrate did not examine upon oath the complainant and any of the witnesses and record their statement before directing investigation under S. 156(3). 2. The correctness and legality of the order made by the Magistrate was sought to be challenged by Sri K. S. Savanur, learned counsel for the petitioner on three main grounds. They are : ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-29-1983
Reported in : (1984)2GLR1458
M.B. Shah, J.1. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1698 of 1982 for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 963 of 1982 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad. Along with the said Miscellaneous Application he bad also filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1785 of 1982 wherein he had prayed that Sections 190 and 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code,' be declared as unconstitutional and illegal. The petitioner also prayed that the procedure prescribed for the Summons Cases beginning from Section 251 to Section 259 is unreasonable and is, therefore, in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.2. In order to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner, a few relevant facts may be noted first. Respondent No. 1 had filed the aforesaid criminal complaint being Criminal Case No. 963 of 1982 on 15-5-82 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, inter aha contending t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-29-1983
Reported in : (1983)22GLR895
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. This Revision Application raises certain interesting questions regarding the interpretation of Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, hereinafter called 'the Act'.2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, run as under:According to the prosecution there is a Swaminarayan Temple situate in village Vadtal which is administered by a registered public trust under a Scheme formulated by this Court. Under the Scheme the Acharya Maharaj is appointed the Custodian-Trustee and the complainant Purani Shantipriyadasjee the Chief Executive Authority (Chief Kotheri) of the temple. Every year 'Nam-Dharmada' money is collected from the followers of the Swaminarayan sect for which Letters of Authority ('Agnya Patra-Mohor Chhap') are issued to different Tyagis. Accordingly the respondent was issued one such Agnya Patra, Exhibit 22, dated 23/24th November, 1977 for the period from Kartak Sudi 14th of Samvat Year 2034 to Chaitra Sudi 15th of Samvat Y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-26-1983
Reported in : [1986]17ITD430(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri P. J. Goradia, Accountant Member - This is an appeals filed by the revenue on the following ground :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 15,760 levied under section 273(2) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts in brief stated are as follows :The assessee filed statement of loss of Rs. 3,199 in Form No. 28A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 14-6-1978. Since the assessed income as Rs. 3,01,540, the ITO initiated penalty proceedings under section 274/273(2) (c) of the Act. It was submitted that because of accumulated losses and unabsorbed allowances amounting to Rs. 28,897 and because the accounts of the company were required to be audited, they were not available till 1-9-1979, etc., the revised estimate could not be filed. Rejecting the submission of the assessee the ITO levied penalty of Rs. 15,760 by observing that it is statutory liability of the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-23-1983
Reported in : II(1984)ACC40
Ginwala, J.1. The two petitioners in these two petitions question the validity of notices dated 27-10-1983 served on them by the respondent State Government in the purported exercise of power under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 and Rule 4A of the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and 'the Rules' respectively) terminating their appointment as Directors of the Board of Directors of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation with effect from 30-11-1983. Since a common question of law is involved in both these petitions, they are disposed of together by this judgment. In view of the urgency of the matter, on 30-11-1983 we had recorded the operative order dismissing both these petitions. We now proceed to record our reasons in support of the same.2. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties it would be convenient at the outset to note the relevant provisions of the Act as they ...
Tag this Judgment!