Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-19-1990
Reported in : 1991CriLJ1745
ORDER1. The Inspector of Police, C.B., C.I.D., Madras, on the lodging of a report, registered a case against the petitioners herein for alleged offences under section 120B read with Sections 147, 148, 364, 302 and 201, I.P.C. and took up investigation. The investigation revealed that six murders were committed on different dates by the petitioners and consequently they were arrested and later remanded to custody by the Magistrate, as detailed below : S. No. Name of Petitioner Date of arrest Date of remand 1 Sankar alias Gowri Sankar 6-7-1988 7-7-1988 2 Mohan 15-7-1988 15-7-1988 3 Eldin alias Albert 15-8-1988 16-8-1988 4 Shivaji 29-8-1988 29-8-1988 5. Jayavelu 6-7-1988 7-7-1988 6. Ravi 9-8-1988 10-8-1988 7. Selvam alias Selvan alias Selvaraj 9-8-1988 10-8-1988 8. Raman alias Rajaraman 10-8-1988 11-8-1988 9. Palani 8-8-1988 9-8-1988 10. Paramasivam 8-8-1988 9-8-1988 The remand periods were extended on various dates by the Magistrate time and again. The petitioners were placed under deten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-31-1990
Reported in : 1992CriLJ21
ORDERBhawani Singh, J.1. These petitions are being decided by this judgment, since the prosecution case against them has similar pattern and counsel for the parties also argued them together.2. Briefly, the allegation against the petitioners is that Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, on the assessment of the demand by Industries in the State, used to place the requirement of steam coal and hard coke, before the Director Movement, Railway Board, Eastern Railway, Calcutta. As a result of this, wagons for the supply of these commodities were allocated each year. The Himachal Pradesh State Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation was appointed agent by the Director of Industries and information regarding the movement of coal wagons from coal fields along with allocation of quota of coal used to be supplied to this Corporation by the Director of Industries. Initially, this Corporation acted as handling agent of the Director of Industries and used to come to Chandigarh for the pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-28-1990
Reported in : 1991(1)ALT345; (1995)IIILLJ68AP
ORDERBhaskar Rao, J. 1. The question that arises in this batch of Criminal Petitions is, whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked against the State for actions resultant of legislative obligations so as to get over the prosecutions in a proceeding under Section 482, Cr. P.C. during the course of administration of Criminal Justice.2. The facts that gave rise to this question are : In 1984 when the petitioner started the school, by name H. Rosetle English Medium School, Section 16 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') exempted application of its provision to establishments employing 20 to 50 persons until expiry of five years from the date of setting up of the establishment. However, in June 1988 the said section underwent an amendment by Act 33 of 1988 whereby the period of exemption was reduced from 'five years' to 'three years'. In view of this amendment, soon after expiry of the three years t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-27-1990
Reported in : 1991(1)ALT368
ORDERBhaskar Rao, J.1. The question of law that arises for consideration in this revision is, whether filing of a charge-sheet by the police is a bar for the court to take cognizance of the offence on a private complaint filed.2. The petitioner herein filed a complaint against the respondents alleging certain offences under Sections 416, 418, 419, 465, 466, 468, 406 and 420 r/w 109 I.P.C. The lower court after recording the sworn statement of the petitioner dismissed the complaint on the ground that at the instance of some person the case was registered by the police, investigation was made and a charge-sheet was also filed and therefore it is not desirable to take the complaint on file and issue process. It is this order that is subject matter of challenge in this revision.3. As submitted by Mr. Padmanabha Reddy, the court on receipt of a complaint filed shall examine on oath the complainant and the witnesses, if any, present under Section 200 Cr. P.C. and thereafter the court, if thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-27-1990
Reported in : II(1991)DMC397; (1991)2GLR190
V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner (Orig. opponent-husband) challenging the judgment and order dated 29.3.1983 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 3, Ahmedabad below application of the opponent dated 10.8.1983 in Misc. Cri. Application No. 150 of 1983. By that application, the petitioner-opponent took preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of Misc. Cri. Application No. 150 of 1983 filed by the respondent-Wife under Section 125 of the Cr. P. Code for getting maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that there is bar of res judicata in view of the order passed by the Civil Court against the respondent-Wife in Civil Suit No. 1173 of 1977 and H.M.P. Suit No. 298 of 1980 wherein it has been held by the Civil Court that the petitioner-Husband has not deserted the respondent-Wife and she was not entitled to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and suit was dismissed. Said judgment and order of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-24-1990
Reported in : 1991(2)BomCR197; (1991)93BOMLR441; 1991CriLJ1405; 1991LC395(Bombay); 1991(53)ELT306(Bom)
1. This Criminal Application has been preferred by the original Accused in Remand Application No. 1246 of 1990 filed before the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, on 4-12-1990 by the Inspector of Customs (Preventive), Marine and Preventive Wing, Bombay. It was alleged that the Department had carried out investigations in respect of the office premises of M/s. Patel Madhavlal Manganlal & Co. (Angadia) and that a large amount of Indian currency an thirteen gold strips had been found. Subsequent to this, further investigations were carried out in the course of which statements of certain persons were recorded and certain other Accused came to be placed under arrest. In the course of the further investigations, it is alleged that the premises of the present Applicant were searched on 1-12-1990. It appears that the Applicant is alleged to have made certain statements to the officers, that they placed him under arrest and that he was produced in the Court on 4-12-199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-24-1990
Reported in : 1991(1)ALT315
Ramanujulu Naidu, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions filed for issue of writs of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce before this Court, respectively, (1) Anwar Ismail, s/o Ismail, (2) Dawood Mohammed, s/o Siddiqui, (3) Dawood, s/o Yusuf, (4) Ishaq, s/o Omar, (5) Baktar Ahmad Mujawar Khan, s/o Mujawar Khan, (6) Kasim Mohammed s/o Shaik Mohammed, (7) Abdullah Usman, s/o Usman, (8) Mossa, s/o Ibrahim, and (9) Rafi s/o Abdullah, presently undergoing detention as remanded prisoners in the Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, hereinafter referred to, for the sake of convenience, as 'the detenus' and to set them at liberty, an important question of law as to the interpretation of Section 167(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequences that flow from contravention of or non-compliance with, the provisions of the said section arises for consideration.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the batch of writ petitions lie in a narrow compass and may briefly be stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-24-1990
Reported in : (1991)1CALLT1(HC)
Anandamoy Bhattacharjee, J.1. A criminal prosecution has been initiated under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation Abolition) Act, 1970 against a Government Company and its Chairman & Managing Director, its Construction Superintendent and its Executive Engineer. The Company and the Officers, but not the Chairman & Managing Director, have moved this Court against the order of issuance of process and have urged that the prosecution ought to be quashed. For the reasons stated hereunder, we decline to do so.2. It has been urged that since the accused company is a Government company whose entire share capital has been subscribed mainly by the Central Government and also by some State Governments, it is very much an instrumentality of the State or the Government and a criminal prosecution against such a one must fail as the State or the Government cannot be criminally procecuted.3. The Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 does not exclude the State or the Government or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-21-1990
Reported in : 1991(2)BomCR353
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay directed against an order dated 6-1-1989 passed by the Member of the Industrial Court, Bombay, in Complaint (ULP) No. 558 of 1988. In the month of March 1988, the three respondents, who are employees of the Municipal Corporation, were placed under suspension pursuant to the loss of a certain amount of money which was kept in one out of three bags and which had been entrusted to them for the purpose of disbursement of wages to municipal employees. The Bombay Municipal Corporation, prima facie, held the three respondents responsible for the loss in question and they were, therefore, placed under suspension on 23-3-1989, pending disciplinary proceedings. A complaint came to be filed in the month of April 1988 by these employees under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.R.T.U. and P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-21-1990
Reported in : AIR1991SC460; 1991CriLJ494; JT1991(1)SC54; 1991LabIC1368; 1990(2)SCALE1312; (1991)2SCC288; [1990]Supp3SCR691; 1991(2)SLJ106(SC); 1991(1)LC341(SC)
ORDERM.H. Kania, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana summarily dismissing Letter Patents Appeal No. 210 of 1990 filed by the appellants herein.2. The respondent was an officer commissioned in the Indian Army. In 1983 the respondent held the rank of Lt. Colonel and was commanding the support Company for IInd Sikh Light Infantry.On June 12/13, 1983, the loss of one Stengun belonging to 'C'-Company and held in the charge of Sepoy Sital Singh, was reported to the Commanding Officer of 261KHLI. An investigation was ordered by the Commanding Officer. It was reported at about 12.00 P.M., on June 14, 1983, that Sepoy Sital Singh had expired and Sepoy Sir Singh had sustained several injuries in the course of an investigation by the respondent and some others. A suspicion arose that these injuries were caused on account of torture inflicted on these sepoys. An F.I.R. was filed with the Police Station, Charinda, Di...
Tag this Judgment!