Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jun-07-1974
Reported in : 1975CriLJ846
ORDERJagjit Singh, J.1. By his order dated May 18, 1974, the Sessions Judge, Delhi, admitted Vipin Kumar Jaggi to bail on his furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rupees 10,000/- each and executing personal bonds for the like amount. For getting the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Shri F. S. Gill, set aside the present petition was filed on behalf of State.2. On September 28, 1973, F. I. R. No. 571 was registered in Police Station, Kamla Market, Delhi. That was on the report lodged by Inder Singh Rana, Cashier of the Union Bank of India,. Chandni Chowk, Branch, After investigation a police report or Challan was submitted on April 25, 1974. Earlier to that date an incomplete report had also been. submitted.3. According to the police report: or the challan five persons, namely, Shawar Khan, Boby alias Sunil Batra, Ravi Kapur, Hariit Singh and Vipin Kumar Jaggi had entered into a criminal conspiracy and were responsible for dacoity committed on September 28, 1973, when-, after murde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-12-1974
Reported in : 1975CriLJ144
B. Raju, J.1. (D/- 18-4-1974). This is an application by the State of Andhra Pradesh for revision of the decision of the Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Cri. A. No. 170 of 1970 acting under the powers conferred upon him under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act 10 of 19-55. In Section 2A of the Essential Commodities -Act heads of commodities which come within the meaning of 'essential commodity' are listed among which are included foodstuffs. For maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, provision is made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act to make orders for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. Under this provision several orders were made from time to time either by the Central Government or by the State Governments under delegation of powers. With regard to foodgrains, edible oilseeds and edible oils, p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-12-1974
Reported in : (1974)76BOMLR612
Malvankar, J.1. This is an application by Bombay Cycle & Motor Agency Ltd., under Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code, for setting aside the order regarding the disposal of property passed in Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 1970 and Criminal Revision Application No. 320 of 1970, by this Court and for restoration of possession of the property to 'the applicant. It arises this way:2. The applicant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 carrying on business inter alia of hire purchase of vehicles. The applicant alleged that they were the owners of a vehicle viz. 'Dodge Model B6 D300-133' petrol chassis, with four years of the value of Rs. 24,219.10, supplied to them by M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd., Bombay, under Sales Invoice dated May 2, 1968. Under a hire purchase agreement entered into by respondent No. 1, the vehicle was put in his possession. The said agreement dated May 13, 1968 provided that in the event of respondent No. 1 paying the initial hire charges ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-12-1974
Reported in : AIR1975P& H148
Bhopinder Singh Dhillon, J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No. 3, Dr. Abchal Singh, purchased a piece of agricultural land on April 10, 1968 from Sarvshri Lilak Chand and Raj Kumar, owners of the land situate in village Hebowal Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. 'The petitionerHukam Singh claimed himself to be a tenant in possession of the said land. Dr. Abchal Singh, after having purchased the said land, is alleged to have made attempts to dispossess Hukam Singh petitioner from the land in dispute. On May 19, 1968 at about 5.30 A. M., Dr. Abchal Singh fired a gun shot at the petitioner which hit him on his right leg and caused multiple injuries. At the same time he fired another gun shot which hit Bawa Singh, brother of the petitioner, who later on succumbed to the injuries. A case under Sections 302/307/447 of the Indian Penal Code etc. was registered against Dr. Abchal Singh and some others in which the Additional Sessions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-11-1974
Reported in : (1975)1MLJ188
N. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The appellant Misrimal Hansraj was convicted under Section 135 (b)(ii) of the Customs Act (hereinafter called ' the Act') and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras.2. In respect of the disposal of the alleged smuggled watches (M.O. 1 series), no separate order was passed as, in the opinion of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, they have been already confiscated to the State by the Customs Authorities.3. The appellant is running a business in watches and other fancy goods in the premises at No. 97, Narayana Mudali Lane, George Town, Madras, under the name and style of Messrs. Sha Manmal Misrimal, a partnership firm consisting of the appellant and his two brothers.4. On 19th December, 1968, P.W. 1 J Rama Rao, Preventive Officer, attached to the Customs House, Madras, searched the shop of the appellant in pursuance of a search warrant issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs and recovered from the shop, 221 wris...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-19-1974
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1891
Vaidya, J.1. This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by one Balkishan A, Devidaval against whom Criminal Case No. 102/5/72 is pending in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court. Victoria Terminus, Bombay. The application involves important points under the Railway Protection Force Act 1957 (Act No. 23 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the 'R. P. F. Act'') and the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 1966 (Act No. 29 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the 'R. P. U. P. Act').2. The above case arose out of a complaint filed by the Inspector, Central Intelligence Bureau, Head Quarters before the Presidency Magistrate, at V. T., Bombay.3. The allegations in the said complaint may be briefly summarised as under:On November 21, 1970, the Assistant Security Officer, Central Railway, Bhusa-wal, intimated to the Chief Security Officer Bombay V. T. that two wagons Nos. ERKC-9447 Ex. HSPG BNDM to Akola and Wagon No. ERKC 75531 Ex. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-17-1974
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR16
Hajarnavis, J.1. This case has been referred to this Bench, at the instance of our learned brother Gandhi J. for decision on the following questions:1. Whether stating the grounds of his being so satisfied in Section 145(7) mean that the Magistrate empowered under the section to pass order must separately give reasons or grounds of being so satisfied of his reading the application and satisfying himself by seeing that the complainant has made statements on solemn affirmation are sufficient to pass a preliminary order?2. Whether non-stating of grounds or reasons vitiates the order and/or the subsequent proceedings including the final order under Section 145(6)?3. Whether the preliminary order passed on a cyclostyled form with blanks filled in ink necessarily implies that the Magistrate has not applied his mind or has mechanically passed the order without considering the contents of the application?4. Whether 'a breach of the peace' referred to in Section 145(1) necessarily means 'breach...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-15-1974
Reported in : 1975CriLJ337
M. N. Shukla, J.1. This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer that this Court may recall its judgment dated 25-5-1973 whereby it dismissed criminal Appeal No. 2849 of 1970. This application' originally made before Hon'ble Mr, Justice H. N. Kapur who had decided the appeal, but he referred it to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement and it is in these circumstances that this case has come before us.2. The applicants were convicted by the Temporary Sessions Judge, Etah under Sections 147, 304/149 and 323/149 I.P.C. by his order dated 17-12-1970 and they were sentenced to different terms of imprisonment. The applicants preferred the aforesaid appeal to the Hon'ble Court against their conviction and sentences and the memo of appeal was presented by Sri Sudhir Chandra Varma, Advocate. The applicants were granted bail at the time of the admission of the appeal but before the date of final hearing the applicants engaged Sri Rajesh Ji...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-18-1974
Reported in : (1974)76BOMLR515
Bhole, J.1. The petitioner is wife of respondent No. 1 who had applied in the Court of the learned Presidency Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivli, Bombay under Section 489, Criminal Procedure Code, for modification of the maintenance order passed against him. His case is that he was ordered ex parte on June 22, 1967, to pay maintenance to the petitioner-wife and his two sons at the rate of Rs. 250 and Rs. 125 for each of his two sons per month. The first ground given by him for modification was that his financial condition has now changed and the entire estate of which he was owner is now being administered by a Court Receiver. The second ground was that he has gone old and his eye sight is weak and therefore he is unable to do any work. The third ground was that he has divorced his wife and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance. The fourth and the last ground was that his second son Rafi-ud-din is illegitimate and therefore he is not entitled to any maintenance allowance.2. He has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-18-1974
Reported in : (1974)76BOMLR627; 1974MhLJ789
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question that has been referred to the Full Bench runs as follows:Whether the documents like Ex. 28, being the statement of the complainant recorded by P.S.I. Sarakwas (P.W. 13), Ex. 33 being the first panchanama made in the presence of panchas and signed by the panchas, Ex. 34 being the second panchanama prepared under the signature of the panchas by P.S.I. Sarakwas (P.W. 13) after the trap was successful and Ex. 35 being panchanama prepared by P.S.I. Sarakwas (P.W. 13) are in any manner hit by the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if at all to what extent and whether they can be entirely excluded as inadmissible?2. The question framed arises in these circumstances: In the year 1967 one Vidyadhar Bakare was appointed an Arbitrator for Town Planning Scheme Nos. I and III and the locality known as Parvati was included in Scheme No. III. The Scheme was prepared by Poona Municipality in the year 1934 and thereafter the draft scheme was a...
Tag this Judgment!