Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-13-1980
Reported in : 19(1981)DLT104
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is an application by Delhi Administration to revise the order of the Chief Metropolitan Megistrate dated June 30, 1980. The respondent was arrested in connection with the murder of Bawa Gurbachan Singh and his body guard Pratap Singh. The investigation is still proceeding ; no charge sheet has been filed. (2) In the course of investigation autopsy was performed by the police surgeon, Dr. Bharat Singh. His two post-mortem reports and a medico legal examination report are at present in the custody of the inuestigation agency. The respondent made an application for copies of these documents on the ground that they are public documents and he is entitled to certified copies on payment of requisite fee. The Megistrate has ordered the prosecution to supply copies of the reports. Form his order the Administration has come in revision. (3) The matter first came before Charanjit Talwar J. He referred it to a larger bench in view of the importance of the question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-02-1980
Reported in : 1980CriLJ748
V.D. Misra, C.J.1. 'Whether the period of detention of an accused person in police custody under Sub-section (21) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to be included while calculating the period of 90 days or 60 days under clauses (i) and (ii) respectively of paragraph (a) of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the amended Code?' is the question referred to this Bench by one of us (H.S. Thakur, J.) The relevant part of Section 167, before Its amendment by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1978. was in the following terms:167 (11 whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and if appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by Section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer-in-charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-30-1980
Reported in : (1980)21GLR857
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Cambay Municipality and its Inspector for shops and establishments have filed this petition under the following circumstances.2. Respondents Nos. 1 to 49 are owning and operating power-looms in the city of Khambhat. They have been employing workmen on piece-rate basis. Petitioner No. 2 inspected the premises where these power-looms are situate and found that respondents Nos. 1 to 49 had not been paying to their workmen for the weekly rest day under Section 18 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. Petitioner No. 2, therefore, filed 2227 complaints against 49 power-loom owners in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Khambhat. The learned Magistrate held in all those cases by a common order that Section 18 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (Bombay Act No. LXXIX of 1948) was repugnant to Section 13 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and was, therefore, void. He, therefore, dropped all the complaints under Section 258 of the Code of C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-05-1980
Reported in : 1981CriLJ928; 19(1981)DLT212
M.L. Jain, J. (1) This is a petition moved by the complainantSuresh Kumar under sub-section (6) of s. 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for transfer of the case State v. Om Pal Singhand others, under Ss. 364, 365, 342, 506, T.P.C., from the court ofShri P. K. Bahri, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, to some other competentcourt.(2) Upon an F.I.R. lodged with the A. C. Police (Crime) on 21/08/1978, at 10.45 P.M., a case was instituted against the accusedrespondents on the allegations that on 20/08/1978, at about10.30 P.M. in the night, the complainant Suresh Kumar and one MissSushma Chaudhary were going in a car No. Brp 651 towards JamunaBazar within the jurisdiction of P. S. Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Theywere invested by about ten-eleven persons who emerged out of twotaxis and drove them away to a big building on the roadside. Theywere beaten, detained and forced to write some letters and pose forphotographs. The identity of only three abductors could be established.They were, (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-20-1980
Reported in : 1981CriLJ125; 1980MhLJ849
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application is placed before us for hearing in view of the reference order dated the 18th December, 1979 passed by Kotwal, J. The Applicant accused and Original accused No. 2 Shankar are being prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of one Shoukat on 23rd September 1978. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the prosecution story because we are not concerned with the merits of the case at this stage.2. It appears from record that after completing the investigation a charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay who in his turn committed both the accused persons to stand their trial before the Sessions Court Greater Bombay. Thereafter a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code was framed by the Sessions Court. This charge was framed on 9th November, 1979 and on the same day the Publ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-15-1980
Reported in : 1980CriLJ1379; 18(1980)DLT172
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) This is an appeal by Randhir Singh, aged 40 years, an agriculturist of Village Poolh Kalan, Delhi. He has been convicted by Shri R. P. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by his judgment passed on October 25, 1979, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife Shrimati Bhagwani, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment fur life and a fine of Rs. 20LO.00 , in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant has also been convicted for an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for destroying the evidence of crime by burning the dead body of Smt. Bhagwani, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500.00 . in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.(2) The facts leading to the registration of the case are as follows. On December 23, 1978, at about 11 p.m. an anonymous telephonic call was received at Police...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-24-1980
Reported in : AIR1980Mad260
1. These appeals, which have been preferred by the State represented by the learned. Public Prosecutor against the orders of the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate of Namakkal acquitting the respondent-accused in each case of an offence punishable under Section 4(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act are before us, inasmuch as on a reference by one of us, before whom the appeals originally came up for hearing, the matter has been placed before this Full Bench since the matter involved a question of law of public importance, in regard to which question of law there have been divergent views of various High Courts.2. Of the two questions which have been referred to this Full Bench, the first one, namely, whether under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., a Magistrate can acquit the accused if the prosecution fails to apply for the issue of summons to any witness and does not produce the witness for several hearings and does not serve summons on the witnesses despite having been granted suff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-14-1980
Reported in : AIR1981Bom184; 1981MhLJ18
Deshmukh, C.J.1. This is a petition for review of judgment made by this Bench on 7th Feb., 1980 in Special Civil Application No. 1884 of 1975. When this petition was admitted and rule was issued to the respondents, both the learned counsel now appearing before us were present. Advocate Shri Keswani represented respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who were also original respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition. Shri Angel, Advocate, was present on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 to 10, who were the original respondents Nos. 3 to 10 in the writ petition. The learned counsel accepted the notice on behalf of the respective respondents and the hearing was fixed on 11th August, 1980. It was made clear that it will be open to the respondents to point out that the petition for review does not lie as this Court has no right of review at all. If the review petition lay, it would still be open to the respondents to argue that this is not a fit case for exercising the powers of review. Accordingly we have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Decided on : Jun-23-1980
Reported in : 1981CriLJ856
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The prosecution, having failed to tender one of the witnesses for cross-examination after charge in spite of repeated opportunities, applied to the Court to summon and examine three more witnesses to prove that the whereabouts of the first-mentioned witness were no longer traceable, so that his deposition before charge could be admitted in evidence under Section 33, Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Karmadhan Lama v. State of Sikkim 1979 Cri LJ 610 I have held that in a warrant-case (not instituted on a police report) an accused has an absolute right to cross-examine a prosecution witness before charge and therefore, the statement of a witness before charge can be treated as evidence, even though the witness is not and cannot be recalled for cross-examination after charge, if before charge the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine him.2. In this case, the witness concerned was in fact cross-examined by the accused before charge and therefore, according to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-09-1980
Reported in : AIR1980SC1632; (1980)82BOMLR518; 1980CriLJ1125; (1980)2SCC565; [1980]3SCR383
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. These appeals by Special Leave involve a question of great public importance bearing, at once, on personal liberty and the investigational powers of the police. The society has a vital stake in both of these interests, though their relative importance at any given time depends upon the complexion and restraints of political conditions. Our task in these appeals is how best to balance these interests while determining the scope of Section 438 of the CrPC, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974).2. Section 438 provides for the issuance of direction for the grant of bail to a person who apprehends arrest. It reads thus :438. (1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.(2) When the High Court or the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!