Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-19-1959
Reported in : AIR1960P& H565; 1960CriLJ1491
ORDER(1) This petition has arisen from my order dated the 1st May, 1958, in Criminal Revision No. 835 of 1957.(2) To appreciate the points agitated, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. A first information report under section 408, Indian Penal Code, was lodged at the instance of Fida Ahmed, Private Secretary to the Nawab Iftikhar Ali Khan of Malerkotla, alleging commission of criminal breach of trust by the accused (Shaukat Ali Khan) who was at one time in the service of the Nawab. During the proceedings in the trial Court (Magistrate 1st Class Malerkotla) the prosecution wanted to examine Nawab Iftikhar Ali Khan as a witness and, it appears, at the instance of the counsel of the State a letter of request was issued to the Nawab for appearing in Court on or about 3rd October, 1956. An application was moved on behalf of the Nawab representing that he was immune from the ordinary process of the Court, exemption from appearance in Court accordingly was sought and it was prayed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-24-1959
Reported in : AIR1961AP18
ORDERSanjeeva Row Nayudu, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Kakinada, made in C. C. No. 297 of 1956 rejecting the preliminary objection taken by the petitioner before him as to the maintainability of the prosecution in that case. 2. The facts out of which this revision petition has arisen may be briefly stated; The petitioner was a member of the Panchayat Board, Yeleswaram in East Godavari District. He was appointed as temporary President for the purpose of conducting a meeting of the Panchayat Board in order to effect the co-option of a woman member to the Panchayat Board. This meeting was conducted on 11-7-1956. At that meeting one Nookamma was co-opted as the woman member. The respondent in this revision petition filed a Writ Petition in the High Court against the co-option, which was dismissed on the ground that an alternative remedy by way of an election petition lay. Later the respondent filed an election petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-08-1959
Reported in : AIR1960P& H377; 1960CriLJ993
ORDER(1) The record of this case has been forwarded to this Court by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, with a recommendation that the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rewari, dated 6th of March, 1959, be set aside and the learned Magistrate be directed to try the case according to law afresh.(2) Ch. Ram Sarup has appeared before me in support of the reference and Mr. V. P. Prashar has opposed the recommendation. On a perusal of the record I find that Shri Manohar Lal had made an application under section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure, against Sukh Ram Singh, Sarpanch of village Gangaicha Ahir, to which he complainant also belongs. The allegations contained in the application are that Sukh Ram Singh had made an unlawful obstruction on a public thoroughfare by constructing a chabutra and this had narrowed down the thoroughfare.After recording preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate issued a conditional order in pursuance of which Sukh Ram Singh Sarpanch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-05-1959
Reported in : AIR1959All483; 1959CriLJ924
A.N. Mulla, J. 1. Sri C. N. Peters has been convicted under Section 161, I.P.Code and sentenced to fifteen months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months by Sri K. L. Arora, Special Judge, Lucknow. The charge against the appellant is that he demanded and received illegal gratification from Kalapnath Lal Guard on 14-2-1955 at about 4 P. M. in the Guards' Running Room at Gorakhpur Railway station.2. The prosecution story is that the appellant was posted at Gorakhpur as the Claims Prevention Inspector in the North Eastern Railway. Kalapnath Lal was a Guard in the same railway with his headquarters at Gonda. On the 8th February 1955, Kalapnath had taken a goods train from Gonda to Gorakhpur and when the train reached Gorakhpur it was found that some bags were stolen away from one of the wagons in the train. A report was made to the Government Railway Police and enquires were started.The appellant who was present at Gorakhpur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-14-1959
Reported in : AIR1960P& H80; 1960CriLJ275
Dua, J.(1) The only question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the order of the Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, dated 30-7-1958, is without jurisdiction and therefore illegal and void as found by the learned Sessions Judge and whether the lower appellate Court was justified in setting aside the said order without considering the appeal on the merits.(2) Giani Ram brought a complaint against Attar Chand and 4 others under Ss. 447, 448/147 of the India Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, however summoned only Attar Chand and Gurdas Mal and after trial found them both technically guilty of the offence under S. 447, Indian Penal Code. On this finding they were fined Rs. 51/- each.(3) Feeling aggrieved the two accused went up in appeal to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge. The lower appellate Court has observed that after recording preliminary enquiry the learned Magistrate had summoned Attar Chand and Gurdas Mal only under S. 447 of the Indian Penal Code and offence u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-22-1959
Reported in : AIR1960All618; 1960CriLJ1290
Tandon, J.1. The petitioner who is Gaya Prasad Misra was a member of the Police Force in this State. He entered service sometime in 1935 as a Constable but was working as Station Officer Incharge Police Station Misrikh in 1952. While posted in Sitapur district where Misrikh is situate he appeared to have purchased a house for Rs. 8000/- in the name of his wife. Admittedly he did not inform the higher authorities, as was necessary under Rule 11 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules, about the purchase of this house.He was accordingly asked by the Superintendent of Police on 18-12-1953 about this purchase and he was also suspended with effect from the same date. On 10-4-1953 he was served with a charge sheet also under Section 7 of the Police Act accusing him of several charges in which he was blamed of having accepted illegal gratification besides purchasing the above house.A case under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 was also registered agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-24-1959
Reported in : 1961CriLJ37
ORDERSanjeeva Row Nayudu, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate. Kakinnda. made in C.C. No. 297 of 1956 rejecting the preliminary objection taken by the petitioner before him as to the maintainability of the prosecution in that case.2. The facts out of which this revision petition has arisen may be briefly stated: The petitioner was a member of the Panchayat Board, Yeleswaram in East Godavari District. He was appointed as temporary President for the purpose of conducting a meeting of the Panchayat Board in order to ellect the co-option of a woman member to the Panchayat Board. This meeting was conducted on 11-7-1936. At that meeting one Nookumma was co-opted as the woman member. The respondent in this revision petition filed a Writ Petition in the High Court against the co-option, which was dismissed on the ground that an alterative remedy by way of an election petition lay.Later the respondent filed an election petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-03-1959
Reported in : AIR1961P& H171; 1961CriLJ553
ORDERI.D. Dua, J. 1. This case has been forwarded to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, in the following circumstances. Bishamber Nath filed a complaint against Ram Narain and Mst. Jiwani Bai under Sections 497/494, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of Shri D.H. Gupta. Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak. Ram Narain accused preferred a revision in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge on 14th May 1959 on the ground that the order passed by the Magistrate summoning Ram Narain and his wife Mst. Jiwani Bai was in contravention or Section 204, Criminal Procedure Code, and therefore deserves to be quashed. The learned Sessions Judge has in his order observed that the learned Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of Section 204, Clauses (1A) and (1B), Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch ai neither a list of witnesses had been put in by the complainant along with the complaint nor was A copy of the complaint sent by the Court to the accused. The learned Sessions Judge is of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-13-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Ker218
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner in this revision petition complained to the Police that accused 1 to 5 and fifteen others committed theft of livestock, agricultural produce and implements worth Rs. 873/- from the land in his possession and the huts thereon. The police sent up a report that the allegations were false. Thereupon the petitioner preferred a complaint before the Second Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. As there was undue delay in the disposal of the case, the District Magistrate Quilon, transferred the case to his file and tried it. Holding that the complaint was false and vexatious, he discharged the accused and ordered the complainant to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the four surviving accused. The complainant who was present in court when the judgment was delivered stated that the complaint was true and that the witnesses had turned hostile as he had evicted them from the property during the trial of the case. The District Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-06-1959
Reported in : AIR1960SC128; 1960CriLJ171; [1960]1SCR935
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court at Patna, raises ashort question about the construction of Art. 9 in Sch. I of Court Fees Act VIIof 1870 (hereinafter called the Act). A proceeding was instituted against theappellant, Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee, under s. 107 of the Code of CriminalProcedure in the Court of the Magistrate of First Class at Bhagalpur; in thisproceeding the learned magistrate directed the appellant to execute a bond ofRs. 5,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to keep the peace for aperiod of one year. The appellant challenged this order by his appeal beforethe Additional Session Judge at Bhagalpur. The appellate judge agreed with thedecision of the learned magistrate and the appeal preferred by the appellantwas dismissed. The appellant then took this matter before the High Court atPatna by his Criminal Revision Application No. 924 of 1957. It appears that thecertified copies of the orders passed by the two courts below in ...
Tag this Judgment!