Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-15-1962
Reported in : AIR1963Cal261,1963CriLJ579,67CWN297
P.B. Mukharji, J.1.This is a petition by Ranjit Kumar Ghosh under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is directed for the release of a person called Sanat Chandra Bose, son of a well-known Solicitor of the City, Akshoy Chandra Bose, deceased. The main ground of the petition is that the said Sanat Chandra Bose was being unlawfully and illegally detained at a place called Lumbini Park said to be a Mental Hospital and Clinic run by the Indian Psycho-analytical Society, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The main contention of the petitioner is that the said Sanat Chandra Bose is not a lunatic at all.2. There are four respondents to this petition. The first two are respectively the Secretary of the Indian Psycho-analytical Society and the Superintendent of the Lumbini Park (respondents NOS. 1 and 2): the third respondent is Rabindra Nath Mitra alleged to be the guardian of the person of said Sanant Chandra ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-05-1962
Reported in : AIR1963Cal61,1963CriLJ49,67CWN159
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. Two petitioners, Sudhanshu Bhusan Pal and Bhagat Singh make this application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order charging them in the criminal case and prosecution under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act dated the 5th January, 1958.2. The petitioners obtained this Rule on the 10th December, 1958 and even a stay of the pending criminal proceedings. There was no order for expeditious hearing of this application. The result is that the criminal proceedings have remained stayed for these long four years. Such a prolonged stay of a pending criminal case through the process of Article 226 of the Constitution is in many cases calamitous for the ultimate prosecution because by the time when the application ultimately fails, the long stay has practically wiped out in many cases important, relevant and irreplaceable evidence on which the prosecution was launched and on which prosecution depended. The sections of the Criminal Procedure C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-14-1962
Reported in : AIR1963Guj162; 1963CriLJ17; (1963)0GLR602
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. This is a Revision Application by the State-against an order of discharge, discharging the three opponents against whom a police report was sent under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The order of discharge was confirmed in revision by the learned Sessions Judge. In revision before me it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the order of discharge in so far as Opponents Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned is erroneous. The learned Government Pleader has not contended that the order of discharge of Opponent No. 1 is erroneous.2. The learned counsel for the opponents, however, contends that there are concurrent findings of fact of both the lower Courts, that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, that it is open to a Magistrate before committing the accused for trial to consider the case of self-defence suggested by the accused in their, examination and that the Courts below having held, that the case of self-defence is proved, this Court should not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-19-1962
Reported in : AIR1963MP162; 1963CriLJ600
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J.1. This is an application by the Nawab of Jaora a ruling prince, who is the de facto complainant in a criminal case before the Magistrate, Jaora, (against one Sagarmal Mahajan) actually filed by his mukhtar-am or agent. The Nawab wanted to examine himself as a witness which is in his own interest. However, he simultaneously insisted that he was a 'privileged person' exempt as of right from personal attendance as a witness in a criminal Court, and should be examined on commission in the manner provided in Section 503 Criminal Procedure Code at his own residence. The learned Magistrate having heard both the parties, felt that on grounds of reasonableness and justice, there was no case for action under Section 503 Criminal Procedure Code; if the Nawab wanted to examine himself as a witness in support of his own complaint, he should come to the Court like any other witness. On the legal aspect of the matter the Magistrate felt that there was nothing in the law, that i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-23-1962
Reported in : 1962CriLJ727
Umamaheswaram, J.1. This petition comes on for hearing before us as a result of the reference made by one Of us (Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.,) sitting with Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This petition is filed by the Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh under Article 225 of the Constitution and -Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to declare that the judgment of our learned brother Mr. Justice Sanjeeva Row 'Nayudu dated 6-7-1959 in. Criminal Appeal No. 14. of 1959 and Criminal Revision case No. 682/ 1958 is without jurisdiction, void and of no legal effect and to quash the same. .2. The circumstances under which the Application was filed are as follows:3. The respondent, Devireddi Nagileddy, was tried by the Sessions Judge of Cuddapah in Sessions Case No. 43/58 on a charge Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of one Subbi Reddy. The teamed Sessions Judge convicted him Under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-28-1962
Reported in : AIR1963All148; 1963CriLJ399
Nigam, J.1. On 31st May, 1960 Station Officer Nasirabad, district Rae Bareli submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Saion reporting that as usual the Urs fair was to be held from 1-6-1960 to 6-6-1960 at the Dargah Sharif situate at Jais, police station Nasirabad and that there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace in regard to the offerings made at the Dargah in connection with this Urs. This report for action under Section 145 of the Code at Criminal Procedure was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who, on perusing the report, was satisfied of the existence of an apprehension of a breach of the peace and passed an order under Section 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 2-6-1960. in view of the emergency, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistral' further directed that the said Dargah Sharif along with cash, sweets and other offerings be attached and placed in the custody of five reliable persons who were directed to keep accounts of tna property and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-03-1962
Reported in : AIR1962All456
ORDERS.D. Singh, J.1. This reference has been made by the learned Sessions Judge, Gonda under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of certain proceedings pending before Sri A.S. Misra, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, Gonda. The applicant in the case is Sri Surendra Bahadur Singh, Station Officer, police station Mankapur in district Gonda, in order to understand the points involved in the decision of this reference, the facts giving rise to it have to be narrated in detail. While the applicant Sri Surendra Bahadur Singh was posted as Station Officer, Police Station Mankapur, some complaints regarding bribery, corruption, coercion and misconduct were made to the Uttar Pradesh Home Minister by Sri Baldeo Singh, M. L. A. Copies of these complaints were forwarded by the Government to the District Magistrate, Gonda, and a magisterial enquiry was desired into these allegations. The exact order which was received by the District Magistrate is not on the record, but the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-21-1962
Reported in : AIR1963Mys77; 1963CriLJ306; ILR1962KAR848
H. Hombe Gowda, J.1. These two Criminal Appeals by the State are against two separate orders of acquittal passed by the First Class Magistrate, Virajpet, in S. T. R. 571 of 1961 and S. T. R. 1464 of 1961 respectively and involve the determination of the same question, viz., whether the failure of the Magistrate to give reasons for his order of acquittal in a case tried summarily under Section 264 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amounts to an illegality which vitiates the trial, hence they have been heard together and this judgment will govern both of them.2. In S. T. R. 571 of 1961 the charge against accused was that he was found in possession of two bottles which contained 16 drams of arrack without a permit and had thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1) (a) of the Coorg Prohibition Act. In S. T. R. 1464 of 1961 the accusation against the respondent was that he was found moving in the streets of Virajpet having consumed arrack and in a state of intoxication on 24...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-05-1962
Reported in : AIR1962All405
ORDERS.K. Verma, J.1. One Sabir Ali sold an Imli tree in his grove No. 328, situate in village Ratnapur, Police Station Bahraich, to one Jhabboo. The latter got the tree cut and removed from the grove on the 6th of February, 1958. He did so without obtaining permission from the competent authority. According to the prosecution case, ho thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 15 (1) of the U.P. Private Forests Act which reads as follows:-'15. Offences under this Chapter and trial of such offences and penalties thereof:- (1) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Chapter or deviates from the prescriptions of a sanctioned working plan without the previous sanction; of the Forest Officer shall be punishable with fine not exceeding one hundred rupees for the first offence and with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees or simple imprisonment not exceeding three months or both for the second or any subsequent offence - * * * ** *' Both Sabir Ali and Jhabboo we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-02-1962
Reported in : AIR1962Kant196; AIR1962Mys196
ORDER(1) The petitioner in this case who is a Havaldar in the Madras Engineering Group, Ulsoor and who is therefore an employee in the Indian army, was charged with having committed the murder of one Tatachari, a Subedar in that army unit on November 1, 1961. The information about this murder was communicated by one Captain Yedav, another officer in that army on November 2, 1961, and this information reached the concerned Magistrate on November 3, 1961. After the investigation was completed by the police, a charge sheet was placed before the Magistrate on November 22, 1961. On December 8, 1961, the officer commanding the army in which the petitioner was serving, made an application to the Magistrate under Section 125 of the Army Act asking for the delivery of the petitioner to him so that he may be tried by a Court -martial. The magistrate gave the officer commanding, the order which he wanted, and it is against this order that the petitioner complains in this revision petition.(2) It ...
Tag this Judgment!