Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-07-1975
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1981; 1975()WLN179
Kalyan Dutta, J.1. By his order dated 4-6-1974, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, released Bhanwaru Khan, Mohammad, Alfu, Ganni and Bhanwaru son of Rahaman, non-petitioners on bail upon each of them furnishing a personal bond in the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, together with two sureties for Rs. 5000/-, each. Aggrieved by the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the State of Rajasthan moved the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, for cancellation of bail granted to the non-petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, rejected the application for cancellation of bail by his order dated 17-9-1974. Hence, the State has come up to this Court by way of an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 439 of the new Criminal Procedure Code for a direction that the non-petitioners, who have been released op bail, be arrested and committed to custody.2. I have carefully gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced by Shri G. A. Khan for the State of Rajasthan and Mr. V. S. Dave, learn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-18-1975
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR411
Vaidya, J.1. The State of Maharashtra has filed the above application under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for cancellation of the bail granted to the opponents, who are accused Nos. 1 to 7, in a murder case, in respect of which Karvir police station has filed a charge-sheet in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Kolhapur, on December 30, 1974, numbered as C.R. No. 178 of 1974.2. The offence is alleged to have taken place on October 31, 1974, at about 8-00 p.m., in the village Koge. One Marutr Avaba Patil, was murdered as a result of continuous blows given by axes and sticks. The prosecution alleges that the accused gave those blows. The prosecution relied on dying declarations alleged to have been made by deceased Maruti.3. Opponents Nos. 1 to 6 (accused Nos. 1 to 6) were arrested on November 1, 1974. Opponent No. 7 was arrested on November 8, 1974; They applied for being released on bail in the Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-08-1975
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1984; 1975()WLN132
ORDERKalyan Dutta, J.1. Khinvdan alias Khiny Singh has applied for bail under Section 439(1) of the new Criminal Procedure Code.2. The Prosecution case against him is that he committed the murder of his wife Kalyan Kanwar alias Nen Kanwar by strangulating her while she was sleeping in a room of his house in the night between 16th and 17th November. 1974. His bail application was rejected by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Desuri, on 24th February, 1975 and thereafter by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, on 17th March, 1975,3. The petitioner was arrested by the local police on 2-12-1974. Thereafter he was kept in detention by a series of orders of remand obtained by the investigating agency from the learned Judicial Magistrate during the course of investigation. The investigation, however, could not be completed within a total period of 60 days from the date of the arrest of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate did not release the petitioner on bail even after the expiry ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-29-1975
Reported in : 1976CriLJ274
C.D. Parekh, J.1. State of U. P, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated April 11, 1970, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, II, Etawah, in Criminal Sessions Trial No. 164 of 1968. The respondents Sant prakash, Prem Saran Munna Lai, Shiv Ram, Shri Ram and Duryodhan were committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial for the offences under Sections 395 and 353 IPC. The trial Judge held that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the respondents and acquitted them of the charges levelled against them. The present appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, It was contended for the respondents before the Division Bench that the officers acting under the authority of law (Defence of India Rules and Gold Control Order) did not comply with the provisions of Sections 103 and 165 Criminal P.C. 1898; the search and seizure, therefore, conducted by these officers were vitiated and were illegal and the respondents had a right...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-25-1975
Reported in : AIR1975Cal450,79CWN996
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. 1. This Special Bench of three Judges has been constituted under extraordinary circumstances arising out of the present Criminal Revision Case No. 676 of 1973 as well as Criminal Revision Case No. 854 of 1973 (Bimal Chandra Samaddar v. Ranjit Samaddar). Both the Revision Cases have been heard by this Bench. In the instant case on the 16th July, 1973 a petition of complaint was filed on behalf of Shyam Sundar Singhania in the Court of the Police Magistrate at Alipore. On the same day the complainant was examined and summons was issued under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for alleged criminal breach of trust. On 27th August. 1973, the accused petitioner Tara Dutta made an application to this Court under Section 439 read with Section 561-A of the Code for quashing the proceeding. On August 27, 1973, Talukdar. J. issued a rule calling upon the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas as also Shyam Sundar Singhania to show cause as to why the proceedings com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-16-1975
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR79
1. The above criminal application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment, dated April 16, 1975, passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, in case No. 6 of 1974, in which the petitioner is prosecuted for an offence under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, on the allegation that while the petitioner was functioning as Income-tax Officer in the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax at Bombay and Nagpur, during the period between February 1, 1958 and November 27, 1971, he was found to be in possession of pecuniary resources or properties both in his name and in the name of his dependent wife and his dependent children, like bank balances, fixed deposits, National Savings Certificates, National Defence Certificates, plots of land, costly household articles, jewellery and motor car, worth Rs. 4,00,687.32, while his known income was Rs. 2,89,986 and his known expenditure was Rs. 1,53,181, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-15-1975
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1312
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. This Reference to the Full Bench has been made by Mr. Justice S. K. Bhattacharyya and Mr. Justice Sudhamay Basu on May, 31 1974 under Chapter VII, Rules I and 5 of the Appellate Side Rules as amended upto the 10th April, 1974.2. One Ram Narayan Gupta was served with an order of detention dated the 7th April, 1972 which the District Magistrate of Midnapore had passed in the exercise of powers vested in him by Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. By virtue of this order the detenu was arrested on the 13th April, 1972 on the ground that he was 'acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community as evidenced by particulars stated therein.'3. On the 23rd May, 1972 the detenu obtained a Rule from this Court under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which was marked as Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 809 of 1972. This Rule was disc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-29-1975
Reported in : 1976CriLJ315
Sudhamay Basu, J.1. This is a petition from jail by one Abul Azad who was sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I. P, C. on the 10th of January 1968. It is for setting off the period of detention undergone by him during investigation and trial in accordance with the Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973,2. The Supreme Court in the case of B. P, Andre v. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bihar, New Delhi reported in : 1975CriLJ182 held that where the accused has been convicted and is still serving his sentence, at the date when the new Code of Criminal Procedure came into force, Section 428 could apply and the connected person would be entitled to claim set off in terms thereof. In another decision, Hardev Singh v. The State of Punjab reported in : 1975CriLJ243 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and at the same time held that the appellant was entitled to get a set off or adjustment under Section 428 Criminal P.C. of the period if any, during which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-16-1975
Reported in : 1975WLN(UC)514
Kalyan Dutta Sharma, J.1. Anand Singh, accused-petitioner, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction or this Court by way of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings instituted against him in the Court of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate Sojat City for an offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C.2 The facts leading to the presentation of this application may be stated as follows, On 31.1.1970, Anand Singh, petitioner, was working as incharge, Sojat City Sub Station, in the capacity of a Junior Engineer Under him about 15 persons were working including Surja Ram deceased, who was helper to Line man and C.C.A On that day a defect was discovered in 11 K.V. line coming from Bilara to Sojat. On this line there was a drop out fuse set provided near Ram Naca. As the line feeding Sojat City was faulty, Shri Anand Singh, Junior Engineer, accompanied by Laxman Ram. Line-man Surja Ram WC Bora Ram, Sheo Lal and Chunnilal casual labo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-19-1975
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(Ker)31
T. Chandrasekhara Menon - In both these cases the question that has been raised for consideration of the court is whether under S. 23 (2) (b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (shortly stated the Act) an Executive Magistrate will have jurisdiction to proceed with the recovery of the tax on application made to him S. 23(2) may be usefully extracted below :'(2) Any tax assessed or any other amount due under this Act from a dealer or other person may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be recovered -(a) x x x x(b) On application to any Magistrate, by such Magistrate, as if it were a fine imposed by him.'2. The contentions that are taken up by petitioners in these cases are that Executive Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of tax as if it were a fine imposed by him for the simple reason that he has no power to impose a fine on the petitioners. It is contended that after the advent of the new Criminal Procedure Code a clear li...
Tag this Judgment!