Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-02-1971
Reported in : AIR1971SC1120; 1971CriLJ832; (1971)2SCC126; [1971]3SCR881; 1971(4)WLN23
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the order and judgment dated 9 September, 1968 of the High Court Rajasthan.2. The question for consideration is whether the Additional Special Judge. Rajasthan, Jaipur could proceed with the trial of Criminal Case No. 2/68/Spl. Cr. as directed by the order of the High Court. That case was initiated under a sanction accorded by the Central Government under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 6(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the appellants along with four civilians were charged with offences punishable under Sections 120B, 161, 165A. 420, 409 and 467A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.3. The Special Police Establishment, Jaipur Branch on 27 January, 1966 put up before the Special Judge, Jaipur a chargesheet against the four appellants and four civilians. One of the civilians turned approver. The fou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-15-1971
Reported in : 1972CriLJ1212
ORDERM. Nesargi, J.1. The petitioner, who was A-l in C.C. No. 841 of 1969 on the file of the II Magistrate, Bangalore has been convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo S. I. for further period of one month. In Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1970. the I Additional Sessions Judge. Bangalore, has confirmed the conviction. but modified the sentence to one of fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to simple imprisonment for one month.2. Originally, wife and daughter of the petitioner were A-2 and A-3 in the said case. They were acquitted in the trial Court. The prosecution case is that somewhere in the year 1962, A-2 executed a mortgage deed in the form of a sale-deed in favour of P. W. 1 the complainant and mortgaged her property a house. On the very day P. W. 1 executed a deed binding himself liable to re-convey the property on the payment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-25-1971
Reported in : 1971CriLJ1003
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule is at the instance of the two accused-petitioners and is against an order dated the 13th April, 1970 passed by Sri P.C. Chakrabortv. Presidency Magistrate, 4th Court. Calcutta, rejecting the petitioners' prayer for staying the criminal proceedings pending against them Under Section 628 of the Companies Act. 1956 and 628/109. I. P, C, respectively being case no. C/. 3179 of 1966, till the disposal of the civil suits nos. 1871 of 1966 and 2304 of 1966 in the High Court.2. A short point is involved in the Rule as to whether the criminal proceedings pending in the Presidency Magistrate's court should be stayed till the disposal of the civil suits pending before the High Court. The background of facts leading on to the Rule though chequered can be put in a short com pass. The complainant opposite party. Sunil Kumar Ganguly filed a petition of complaint in the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate. Calcutta Under Sections 120B, IPC and 628 of the Compani...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-07-1971
Reported in : 1972CriLJ707; (1972)3SCC89
S.C. Roy, J.1. There were six appellants in this case. Three of them were officers of the Government of the State of Bihar and others, were contractOrs. All these persons are alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy for committing the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating, in respect of large amounts of Government money earmarked for a Project known as 'Mahuadar Development Block Pilot Project'. The Project was for the welfare of the scheduled tribes under a scheme sponsored by the Government of India for a period ending with 1960-61.2. Mahuadar Block is in Latehar Sub-Division of the District of Palamau. The offences are stated to have taken place between February 1957 and March 1958. Among the accused persons Narendra Kumar Banerjee (also referred to as N.K. Banerjee). was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1967. He was the Additional Collector of Palamau from November 23. 1956 to September 30. 1957. He then proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-01-1971
Reported in : AIR1971SC1115; [1971]41CompCas474(SC); 1971CriLJ827; (1971)2SCC85; [1971]3SCR859; 1971(III)LC439(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. These appeals are by certificate from the judgment dated 13 August, 1968 of the High Court at Calcutta holding that the memorandum of appeals from an order of acquittal were barred by Article 114 of the Limitation Act, 1963.2. The appeals were directed against orders of acquittal passed by the Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta on 4 April, 1968. The four petitions of appeal were presented in the High Court on 1 July, 1968 by the learned Advocate authorised by the Vakalatnama executed by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, West Bengal described as the appellant in all the petitions.3. The Assistant Registrar pf Companies, West Bengal filed petitions of complaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta alleging that the certain officers/directors of the Standard Paint Works (P) Ltd. of 44 Beadon Row, Calcutta mentioned therein were guilty of offence for non-compliance with provisions contained in the Companies Act, 1956 by reason of default in filing Annual Return ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-28-1971
Reported in : 1971CriLJ1378
ORDERPritam Singh Safeer, J.1. This a petition preferred Under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was on the 17th of March 1971, that I disposed of Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 136 of 1970.2. The Explanationn is contained in this petition as to in which circumstances Shri R.C. Chopra, counsel for the respondent could not be present on that date. The ultimate prayer is that the ex parte order dated the 17th of March, 1971, quashing the proceedings initiated by the complaint dated the 11th of May, 1970, against the petitioners in the aforementioned main petition be set aside.3. Mr. N. S. Sistani, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 136 of 1970, who is the counsel for the respondents in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 264 of 1971, has raised a preliminary objection that the relief sought by the present applicants cannot be granted. His contention is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside an or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-13-1971
Reported in : 1971CriLJ1381; (1971)GLR663
A.A. Dave, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padra acquitting the accused of offences Under Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(2)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act hereafter referred to as the Act.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal as narrated by the learned Magistrate in brief are as under:-The Mukhi of Sangma village of Padra taluka informed the P. S. I. Padra On 27-9-1967 that there was a fight between some persons at the village and that they were under the influence of alcohol. The P. S. I. went there with the police party and found the present accused along with others on the public road of village Sangma. He was arrested and a panchnama of his physical condition was prepared. Thereafter, he was sent to the medical officer, Padra for medical examination. The medical officer, Padra examined him and issued a certificate. His blood was taken which was sent to the chemical analyser for analysis. On receipt of the report of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-04-1971
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi254
S.N. Andley, J.(1) The petitioner, R. K. Gupta, challenges the order dated August 21, 1969 passed by the President of India placing him under suspension with immediate effect from the aforesaid date. The order has placed a further restriction on the petitioner by prohibiting him from leaving New Delhi which has been specified as his headquarters without the previous permission of Mr. K. Rajaram who has signed the order as the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in. the Ministry of Industrial Development, Internal Trade and Company Affairs (Department of Industrial Development). (2) The petitioner was functioning, at the time of his suspension, as a Development Officer in the Directorate General of Technical Development. At the relevant time the Director General of Technical Development was Dr. B. D. Kalelkar. The Union of India; the aforesaid Mr. K. Raja Ram and Dr. B. D. Kalelkar are respondents Nos. 1 to 3, respectively. (3) The order of suspension is challenged on the ground...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-25-1971
Reported in : (1971)12GLR999
B.J. Divan, Ag. C.J.1. The petitioners in these two Special Criminal Applications are both accused persons in a case going on before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the City of Ahmedabad. The case, we are informed, has commenced on August 18, 1970, and it has been going on since then and involves, according to the prosecution, criminal misappropriation to the extent of Rs. 25 lakhs. It is the prosecution case that the accused entered into a conspiracy and did in pursuance of that conspiracy criminally misappropriate this amount from the funds of the Central Bank of India. The Bank has been joined as the second respondent in these two petitions.2. The grounds which have been set out in the two petitions are the same and common arguments have been advanced in both the petitions. The petitioner's case in Special Criminal Application No. 8 of 1971 is that this criminal case was instituted against the accused as a result of the first information report given by the Internal Audito...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-12-1971
Reported in : 1972CriLJ680
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule is at the instance of the complainant petitioner, Benoy Chakraborty against an order dated the 27th February. 1971, passed by Sri H. S. Barari. Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta refusing to issue process against the accused opposite-parties Nos. 2 and 3. in the absence of a sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in case No. G/783 of 1970 under Section 302/34 I. P. C.2. The facts can be put in a short compass. On the 22nd December. 1970, the complainant-petitioner filed a petition of complaint in the court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta under Sections 302/34. 201 and 379 I. P. C. against six named accused persons including the opposite-parties Nos. 2 and 3, and some others, whose names were not known but could be identified. The Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate examined the complainant and sent the matter to Sri R. P. Roy Chowdhury, Presidency Magistrate, 11th Court. Calcutta for a...
Tag this Judgment!