Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-31-1965
Reported in : AIR1965Raj196; 1965CriLJ677
B.P. Beri, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 417 of the Criminal P. C. against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the First Class Magistrate, Nasirabad on 18th June, 1983 in a case of rash driving and causing hurt thereby. 2. Facts leading up to the present appeal are these : On 2nd May, 1982 at about 8 in the morning accused Pukhraj, respondent before me, is said to have been driving his car bearing No. MSW 105 which collided with a truck bearing No. RJZ 209 and thereby caused hurt to the occupants of his own car, namely, his wife, his son and his daughter. For that reason a report was presented against the respondent in the Court of the Munsiff Magistrate First Class, Nasirabad, who framed a charge on 2-1-1963 against the respondent under Section 338, Penal Code (causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety of others) read with Section 279, Penal Code (rash driving on a public way). The case was then adjourned to 12th March, 1983, but no prosecut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-05-1965
Reported in : AIR1965Mys274; [1966]36CompCas562b(Kar); 1965CriLJ654; (1965)1MysLJ265
ORDER(1) The petitioner was appointed voluntary liquidator of a company called Rural Commercial Syndicate Ltd., by a special resolution of the Company dated 2nd November 1958. Under S. 551 of the Companies Act of 1956 he had to file statements mentioned in the section with the Registrar of Companies periodically. It appears he was filing such statements regularly until he committed default in statements relating to the period 2-5-1963 to 1-11-1963 which was due to be filed with the Registrar on or before 1-1-1964. After issuing notice to him to rectify the omission, the Registrar instituted criminal prosecution against him before the First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore.(2) The petitioner admitted his default and pleaded guilty, but placed certain circumstances before the Magistrate on the strength of which he prayed that he be pardoned. It also appears that the necessary statement was filed by him after the presentation of the complaint but before the Magistrate came to di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-19-1965
Reported in : AIR1966Guj166; 1966CriLJ749; (1966)GLR25
1. This matter arises out of an application by the petitioner to this Court praying for a leave to file an appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of acquittal passed by Unjudicial Magistrate, First Class at Broach acquitting opponent No. 1, original accused of an offence under Section 400. I. P. C. in Criminal Case No. 1100 of 1959. That application for leave was dismissed by this Court on July 17, 1963 whereupon the petitioner prayed for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. There was a division of opinion between the two learned Judges constituting the Bench which heard the application under Article 134(1)(c) and hence the matter has been placed for disposal under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent.2. The petitioner in this application is the original complainant who had filed a complaint against opponent No. 1 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Br...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-14-1965
Reported in : AIR1967Bom41; (1966)68BOMLR233; 1967CriLJ163; ILR1966Bom756
ORDER(1) This revision application arises out of proceedings started under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chiplun, found that Party No. 1 was in possession at the material time and passed the consequential order. Against this order, Party No. 2 preferred a revision application to the Sessions Court, Ratnagiri. The learned Sessions Judge held that in view of the decision of this Court viz. Dr. Lallubhai Bhatt v. State of Bombay, he had no jurisdiction to entertain the above-mentioned revision application.(2) In this revision application, Mr. Kode for the petitioner, i.e. party No. 2 contends that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is not correct, inasmuch as the judgment of the Division Bench in the abovementioned case clearly leaves the material question open. According to Mr. Kode, the material question in this case is whether a Sub-Divisional Magistrate acting under S. 145 Cr. P. C. can be said to be an inferior Criminal Court mentioned i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-13-1965
Reported in : AIR1967AP155; 1967CriLJ691
Kumarayya, J.(1) This is a special appeal against the order passed by the Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh dismissing, with costs of respondent No. 1, the election petition No. 195 of 1962 on the file of the Said Tribunal.(2) The appellant is an elector in Nadendla village. In the general election held on 19-2-1962 for return of a candidate from Phirangipuram constituency to the Legislative Assembly of the Andhra Pradesh State the only two contesting candidates found on the arena were respondent No. 1, Sri K. Brahmananda Reddy, and respondent No. 2, Sri Jagarlamudi Chandramouli. It was a contest close and keen. Respondent No. 1 contested on the ticket and program of the congress Organization and respondent No. 2 was a candidate set up by the Swatantra Party. Both of them had considerable influence over the constituency -- the former being the resident of Tubadu, one of the villages in the constituency and the latter being a member of the Kamma community which, it is said, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-20-1965
Reported in : (1967)IILLJ619Kant; (1965)1MysLJ742
1. The sole point that arises for my decision on the strength of the preliminary objection raised by the respondent is whether the petition to revise the order passed by the District Judge, Bangalore, under S. 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is tenable under S. 435 read with S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The facts material for the purpose of the decision of this case are not in dispute. The petitioner filed an application (Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 15 of 1962) before the Second City Magistrate, Bangalore, for recovery of Rs. 3,860.99 from the respondent on the ground the he had been in the service of the respondent as a foreman and that the amount was due in respect of various items of claims enumerated in the petition. That petition came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as also on merits. The petitioner then approached the District Judge, Bangalore, in M.A. No. 46 of 1963. The learned District Judge held that the appellant had not proved any of hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-16-1965
Reported in : AIR1966AP137; 1966CriLJ512
ORDERAnantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner gave a complaint to the Police. After investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur tried the accused. Ultimately, he convicted the accused and sentenced him. At the trial, the petitioner complainant deposed as P.W. 1. The accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Guntur and were completely acquitted by him. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition in this court praying for revision of the lower appellate Court's judgment of acquittal. Along with the revision petition, he filed a certified copy of the judgment of the lower appellate court but he did not file a certified copy of the judgment of the trial court. When the office required him to file a certified copy duly stamped, he came forward with a contention that he was not bound to furnish a certified copy. Therefore, the office put up the matter before me for hearing.2. The petitioner produced a copy of the trial court's...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-19-1965
Reported in : AIR1967Guj42; 1967CriLJ194
ORDER(1) This matter has arisen on the following facts which may briefly be stated. The petitioner in this Criminal Application is the original accused who is an advocate practising at Baroda. He appeared as an advocate for some of the accused who had applied for bail and who were ordered to be released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 3rd Court, Baroda. A person purporting to be Udesing Abhesing stood surety for two accused persons who were ordered to be released on bail and the petitioner advocate identified the surety at the time when that person made an affidavit and executed a bail-bond in connection with the bail. The surety was accepted by the Court and the two accused were released on bail. Subsequently one of the two accused who were released on bail did not remain present in the Court and thereupon a notice was issued to the surety Udesing Abhesing who, when he appeared, in response to the notice before the learned Magistrate, raised a contention that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-03-1965
Reported in : AIR1966Guj293; 1966CriLJ1429
Shelat, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and Order passed on 22-4-1964 by Mr. N. B. Desai, Special Judge, Rajkot whereby the accused-appellant came to be convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for four months in respect of offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.2. The accused-appellant was serving as a Medical Officer, Government City Dispensary at Morvi during the period from May to July 1963. He was class III Officer and was in charge of an out-door dispensary. On the upper storey of the dispensary-building, he had his residential quarters. The dispensary was a free dispensary for all people and that its working hours were 8-30 a.m. to 12-0 p.m. and from 4-0 p.m. to 6-30 p.m. On 6-5-1963 one Natvarsinhji alias Natubha Mansinhbhai of Derala had gone to Morvi along with his servants...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-16-1965
Reported in : AIR1966Mys125; 1966CriLJ555; (1965)2MysLJ193
ORDER(1) The question for decision in this revision petition is, whether a Sessions Judge acts illegally if he accepts the express acquiescence of the accused appellant in the Order of conviction appealed against, while disposing of an appeal under S. 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? (2) The circumstances under which the contention has been raised are not in dispute. The petitioner Smt. Parvathama Hiremath is the Publisher, Printer and Editor of a Kannada Weekly newspaper by name 'Veeramathe'. In the issue dated 26-1-1959 she published an article against the respondent who, according to the evidence, is a reputed dealer in watcher and clocks in the City of Bangalore. The article contained serious imputations against the business-morale and integrity of the respondent. It alleged that he had been evading taxes and It alleged that he had been evading taxes and involved in fifteen cases pending against him. It concluded with an announcement that 'Veeramathe' had appointed her own C....
Tag this Judgment!