Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-12-1978
Reported in : (1979)1MLJ114
ORDERC.J.R. Paul, J.1. This is a petition by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee, dated 19th September, 1977 in Crl. M.P. No. 2382 of 1977 and for a direction to the learned Magistrate to consider the petition filed by the prosecution for custody of A-4 and A-5 on merits.2. The facts are as follows : The Inspector of the Railway Protection Force, who has filed the affidavit in support of this petition, arrested one Kannappan (A-1), one Somasundaram (A-2) and one Mariammal, wife of one Soundara Pandian (A-3) for having been found in unlawful possession of two battery cells belonging to the Railways, interrogated them and recorded the statements given by Kannappan and Somasundaram (A-1 and A-2, respectively), which statements implicated Soundara Pandian (A-4), and Thirupathy Nadar (A-5), who are the respondents herein. On the same day, the Inspector recovered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-05-1978
Reported in : 1979CriLJ369
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. These petitions have come up for admission and orders on I. A. I. filed in both the cases.2. The petitions are admitted and by consent of advocates on both sides, they are taken up for final hearing.3. As common question of law arises in both these petitions, they are disposed of by a common order.4. The petitioner in criminal revision petition No. 247 of 1978 was the accused in C, C. No. 915 of 1976, in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate (III Court), Bangalore City. The petitioner in criminal revision petition No. 248 of 1978 was the accused in C. C. No. 1304 of 1976 in the same court.5. On 25-6-1976, Sri J. Joseph, advocate filed his memo of appearance on behalf of the petitioner in criminal revision petition No. 247 of 1978 and got him enlarged on bail. On 24-6-1978 one witness for the prosecution was present. The petitioner in criminal revision petition No. 247 of 1978 was not present and Sri Joseph filed an application under Section 317 of the Code of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-03-1978
Reported in : (1978)80BOMLR727; 1978MhLJ817
Masodkar, J.1. This matter was placed before us on March 7, 1978, and we directed notice before admission to be issued to the State. It appears that the matter was so placed before this Bench because of the order made by the learned single Judge in a similar application) in Ratan Hiranand Khatri v. The State of Maharashtra (1976) Criminal Application No. 2659 of 1976. The learned single Judge appears to have made that order for two reasons, firstly, because the public prosecutor appearing for the State raised a point that every application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be placed for hearing before the division Bench and not before single Judge and secondly, because the office informed that all applications under Section 561A of 1898 Code as well under Section 482 of 1973 Code were being placed for orders before division Bench and not before a single Judge. It is indeed clear from that order that the learned single Judge has not made any reference as such to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-01-1978
Reported in : AIR1979SC478; (1979)1SCC380; [1979]2SCR476
..... section 6 of the crpc states is that besides the high court and 'the courts constituted under any law, other than this code', there shall be, in every state, the classes of criminal courts mentioned in it, namely, the courts of session, judicial magistrates first class and, in any metropolitan area, metropolitan magistrates, judicial magistrates of the second class, and executive magistrates. so all that the section states is that the five classes of criminal ..... sought. it is not proper or desirable that this court should be called upon to embark upon a roving inquiry into the constitutionality of a bill or an act. such a course virtually necessitates the adoption of a process of elimination with ..... give rise to a prospect too gruesome to envisage and too dangerous to be allowed to have the sanction of law.176. my answer to the question referred by the president will therefore be that apart from the three defects pointed out ..... such special courts, it has been stated that the 'court calendars' are 'congested' and 'powerful accused' are capable of causing much delay in the disposal of cases and that it was necessary that the true character of the persons who had held high political ..... xiii of the code containing section 177 to 189, which deal with 'jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials', are not excluded by the bill. those provisions will govern the question as to the situs of trial. the grievance regarding absence of provision for the confirmation of death sentence .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-29-1978
Reported in : 15(1979)DLT126; ILR1979Delhi464; 1979RLR32
Leila Seth, J. (1) The salient point in this case pertains to the amended Section 13(2) of the Prevent'on of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question posed is whether the amended provisions of the said sub-section of the Act amount to testimonial compulsion and thus violate the constitutional guarantee provided in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.(2) The petitioner, Ashok Kumar, is carrying on business of selling and storing Deshi Ghee at his shop No. 633, Khari Baoli, Delhi. He is a partner of M/s. Amar Dass Chaman Lal. It is alleged that a sample of Amar Special Sudh Ghee was taken by Food Inspector Shri S. C. Bhalla on 24th January, 1977 from the petitioner. The said sample was sent to the Public Analyst who by his report dated 29th January. 1977 found the said Sudh Ghee to be adulterated. On or about 4th April, 1978 Ashok Kumar received a memorandum dated 1st' April, 1978 from the Local Food Health Authority, Delhi Administration encl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Decided on : Aug-24-1978
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1650
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, Actg. C.J.1. I have heard Mr. A. P. Chatterjee, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State and have examined the records of the case and I am of opinion that the revisional application should be dismissed.2. The facts of the case, shorn of such details as are not necessary for the present purpose, are that on receipt of a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners and two others, the learned District Magistrate, without examining the complainant or his witnesses, decided, by his order dated 5th Aug., 1977, to hold enquiry and fixed 17th Aug., 1977, as the date therefor, but on the date so fixed, that is on 17th Aug., 1977, the learned District Magistrate by order transferred the case to another Magistrate for proceeding according to law. The transferee Magistrate on receipt of the complaint fixed 23rd Aug., 1977 for the examination of the complainant and his witnesses and afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-26-1978
Reported in : AIR1979SC1; 1979CriLJ13; (1979)3SCC118; [1979]1SCR947
Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is by special leave by the second party in Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code proceedings against the judgment of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 765 of 1976.2. On receipt of a Police Report dated 29-2-1968, proceedings under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code were started on 18-3-1968. The appellants in this Court are the Second Party and the respondents the First Party. The proceedings were converted into one under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code and the lands in dispute were attached on 14-5-1968. Both the parties claimed title as well as possession of the disputed land with them. The First Party, respondents, filed their documents and nine affidavits in support of their claims while tin appellants, Second Party, filed several documents and 12 affidavits in support of their case. The Magistrate on a consideration of the material placed before him found himself unable to decide as to which of the parties had been in posses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-17-1978
Reported in : AIR1979Ori55; 47(1979)CLT98
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J.1. This revisional application is directed against an order allowimg an application under Order 1, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure filed by opposite parties 4 to 16 for being impleaded as defendants in the suit.2. The petitioners as plaintiffs brought Title Suit. No. 7 of 1977 against opposite parties 1 to 3 for declaration of title to the suit land and for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession. It was alleged that by the alluvial action of the river Paika there was accretion to the rayati holding of the plaintiffs to an extent of 17 acres and the plaintiffs are entitled to the accreted land as an increment to their tenure. Opposite parties 4 to 16 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as parties to the suit alleging that they had taken temporary lease of the suit land from the Tahasildar, Kujang and after expiry of the lease they have been continuing in possession of the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-16-1978
Reported in : 1979CriLJ390; 1978MhLJ808
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. This matter involves a short but rather of general importance point and in particular, relating to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. On 17th November, 1975, the petitioner-accused, a resident of village Shirdhon in Kolhapur District, was apprehended by the Food Inspector Anant Raghoji, Patil at about 12.15 p.m. while he was carrying a can of buffalo milk on way to lchalkaranji for sale. On disclosing the identity the Inspector purchased 660 mili-litre of milk for the purposes of analysis and followed the formalities as imposed by law. The milk was divided in three parts and one sample was alleged to have been given to the petitioner-accused and one sample was thereafter transmitted to the Public Analyst, Pune for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst was received by the Food Inspector on or about 2nd November, 1975 which indicated that only 3.6% milk fat and 4.7% solid not fat were discovered and, therefore, the expert ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-28-1978
Reported in : 1979CriLJ67
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. Twelve pieces of lands situated at Villages Walva and Bavchi in Walva Taluka of Sangli District were the subject-matter of the proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On a report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Walva, Division Sangli, registered a case, being Criminal Case No. 5 of 1977 in respect of the said lands. The preliminary order of his being satisfied that there is an apprehension of a breach of peace was made on 29th September, 1977. Thereafter, on recording evidence and hearing the parties, he passed an order on 29th December, 1977 that the petitioner before me who was Party No. 1 before him was in possession of the lands in dispute. Accordingly he issued an order prohibiting respondent No. 1 before me and Party No. 2 before him from disturbing the possession of the petitioner. This order was challenged by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') in Criminal Revis...
Tag this Judgment!