Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-08-1979
Reported in : 1979WLN(UC)191
M.C. Jain, J.1. The applicant Dhan Raj by the application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, seeks to quash the proceedings under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code (old) initiated by the respondent Smt. Kishni Devi by he; application dated 8.7. 1963 for maintenance of herself and her two children.2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of this application may be briefly stated as under: On presentation of the application Under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code (old) notice was ordered to be issued to the present applicant Dhan Raj On 17 10-1968, the non-applicant Smt. Kishni Devi and her counsel Shri Hulash Mal Chopra were not present so the application was dismissed in default. By that date notice was not served on the present applicant. On the next day i.e. on 18-10-1968 an application for restoration was filed by Shri Hulash Mal Chopra stating that he was under the impression that there is no case mentioned in his diary of 17. 10 68 so he could not present himse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-27-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Delhi99; ILR1980Delhi61
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) Chand Kiran Arcra was married to Kiran Arora (nee Khanna) on 5th December, 1970. They had two children: a son was born on 1st October 1971, and a daughter on 2nd November 1973. On 3rd January 1974, Chand Kiran died. After his death, his wife and two children continued to reside in the house at BF-27, Tagore Garden, New Delhi, along with his parents and other members of the family, as they had done when he was alive. The house stood in the joint names of Chand Kiran and his brother Kanwal Kishore. Besides this, Chand Kiran was also a partner in a firm started by his father Ram Parkash Arora.(2) It appears that a few months after the death of Chand Kiran, his wife began to claim his property for herself' and her children. This antagonised Ram Parkash Arora, and the relations between them became very strained. Ultimately, on 1st June 1974, Kiran Arora left the house with her two children and went to stay with her father in his house at Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. She and he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-26-1979
Reported in : (1980)82BOMLR262
B.N. Deshmukh, C.J.1. This application has been referred to the Full Bench as it was felt that there is apparent conflict between an earlier division Bench judgment in Shri, Chandiram v. Datwani v. The State of Maharashtra (1976) Criminal Application No. 2380 of 1973, decided by Chandurkar and Shah JJ., on August 18/19, 1976 (Unrep.) and the view expressed by the division Bench which passed the reference order in the present application.2. The main point refers to the correct meaning and interpretation of Clause 37 of the Maintenance of Internal Security (Maharashtra Conditions of Detention) Order, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order').3. The facts which are not in dispute and which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the point are these : The petitioner was prosecuted in two different criminal cases being cases Nos. 1411 of 1974 and 1412 of 1974. The first was under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Guests Contro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-26-1979
Reported in : 1979CriLJ1248
B.N. Deshmukh, C.J.1. This application has been referred to the Full Bench as it was felt that there is apparent conflict between an earlier Division Bench judgment in Criminal Application No. 2380 of 1976 and the view expressed by the Division Bench which passed the reference order in the present application,2. The main point refers to the correct meaning and interpretation of Clause 37 of the Maintenance of Internal Security (Maharashtra Conditions of Detention) Order, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order').3. The facts which are not in dispute and which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the point are these: The petitioner was prosecuted in two different criminal cases, being cases Nos. 1411 of 1974 and 1412 of 1974. The first was under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Guests Control Order. The second prosecution was under Clause 8 of the Maharashtra Food Rationing (Second) Order. The petitioner was convicted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-30-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Ker18; 1980CriLJ75
Subramonian Poti, J. 1. Is the District Magistrate exercising powers under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 an 'inferior Criminal Court' and is the order of such District Magistrate re-visable by the Sessions Judge under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? This is the issue which calls for determination in these petitions. A learned single Judge before whom the matter came up referred the matter to the Division Bench in view of the importance of the question and on a reference by the Division Bench the matter is now before the Full Bench. 2. The petitioners in these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seek to set aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry in two Criminal Revision Petitions and seek directions from this Court to the Sessions Judge to entertain the petitions on his file and to dispose them on merits. 3. There was a proposal by the Kerala State Electricity Board to construct and lay a 110 K. V. doubl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-10-1979
Reported in : AIR1979SC1791; 1979CriLJ1346; (1979)2SCC322; [1979]2SCR923
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. On the intervening night of 31st March 1967 and 1st April 1967, two sandstone pillars of great antiquity, beauty and value were stolen from Suraj Kund temple, in Village Amin (District Karnal, Haryana). They were of the Sunga period (2nd Century B.C.) and their present estimated value in the International Art Treasures' Market is said to be around five hundred thousand American dollars. A first information report (F.I.R. No. 72 of 1967) was registered by the Police of Butana, District Karnal. The pillars were recovered on 2nd May 1967. On completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed on 3rd October 1967 in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate at Karnal, against one Bali Ram Sharma and two others. The case ended in their acquittal on 16th July 1968. During the pendency of the case one Narinder Nath Malik (N.N. Malik) filed an application before the Magistrate alleging that he was a research scholar and requesting that he might be given custody of the two pil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-16-1979
Reported in : 17(1980)DLT404; ILR1979Delhi571
..... m judge to judge. but this is inherent in the very nature of things.(202) section 354(3) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (no. 2 of 1974) made a vital change affecting the award of sentence of death. imprisonment for life, where sentence of death is an alternative sentence, has been made a rule. special reasons are now required for awarding sentence of death. obviously the nature of sentence will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. no ..... out if these arc true, whether the inculpatory part of the confession can be used against its maker, and to what extent the confession by one can be used against the other.(176) first contention of the appellants that the confessions are said to be false on the ground that in case sanjay had shown his bleeding injury to inderjeet singh public witness , then many ..... witness. he admitted making a confessional statement which was correctly recorded by mr. p. k. dham, metropolitan magistrate, but explained that he had been forced to make the statement by the police.(55) billa made a detailed statement running into eight pages of the paper-book about his antecedents, running away from bombay to delhi and his movements ..... bandaged. they decided that if they were questioned about the cause of the injury, billa was to say that while he was walking near bangla saheb goondas beat him and took away his watch. billa took off his watch and gave it to ranga. ranga made inquiries about a hospital from passersby. he was directed to moti bagh .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-23-1979
Reported in : 1979CriLJ1474; ILR1979Delhi58
V.D. Misra, J.(1) Whether clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is ultra virus of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India Is the question raised in this writ petition.(2) Shorn of all unnecessary details the facts in brief are that the petitioner is a public servant. He started his career as clerk some where in 1940. (3) After a break of one year from June 15, 1948 to July 15, 1949 he rejoined Government service as a Statistician with the Ministry of Rehabilitation. After working in various capacities in different departments of the Government of India, he was working as Deputy Commissioner in the Ministry of Agriculture when a case under section 5(1)(e) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered against him. After completing the investigation a chargesheet was submitted on July 21, 1977 in the court of Special Judge. It is alleged that the petitioner has been found to be in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 4,8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-22-1979
Reported in : (1980)82BOMLR32; 1980CriLJ126
P.S. Shah, J.1. The petitioner Mohmed Yusuf Ahmed Yusuf Taxiwala, who has been detained by an order dated October 4, 1978, under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Preservation of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), has presented this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. By an order dated October 4, 1978, Shri R.D. Pradhan, the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, who was specially empowered by the Government of Maharashtra, under the provision of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act, directed detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in keeping smuggled goods. On October 6, 1978, the petitioner was arrested pursuant to this order of detention. The grounds of the detention were communicated to the petitioner of October 9, 1978, as required by the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act read w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-07-1979
Reported in : AIR1980SC962; 1980CriLJ690; 1980Supp(1)SCC92; [1980]2SCR380
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 1979. From the order dated 17-9-1979 of the Special Court at New Delhi in Criminal Case No. 1/79. P. R. Mridul, and O. P. Sharma for the Appellant. Soli J. Sorabjee, Solicitor General of India, R. N. Sachthey, Girish Chandra, Bipin Behari Lal and Miss Niklam Grover for the Respondent. The Judgment of S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and A. P. Sen, JJ. was delivered by Fazal Ali, J. D. A. Desai gave a separate opinion and P. N. Shinghal, J. gave a dissenting opinion. FAZAL ALI, J.-This appeal is directed against an order dated 17th September 1979 passed by Justice Joshi, Special Judge appointed under the Special Courts Act, 1979 (No. 22 of 1979) (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') by which the learned Judge directed a charge to be framed against the appellant under s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with s. 5 ( 1 ) (d) and s. 5 (2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1947 and also under s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1)(d) of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!