1
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-11-1983
Reported in : AIR1983SC439; 1983CriLJ839; 1983(1)Crimes797(SC); 1983(1)SCALE274; (1983)2SCC372; [1983]2SCR537
D.A.Desai, J. 1. Respondents Lakshmi Brahman and Naval Garg were suspected of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC. Both of them surrendered before the Magistrate on November 2, 1974 and were taken into custoday. The investigation was then in progress. The investigating officer failed to submit the charge-sheet against them within a period of 60 days as contemplated by Sub-section 2 of Section 167 of 1973 Code prior to its amendment by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1978 which enlarges the period from 60 to 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. In this case we are concerned with the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Cr. P.C. 1973 prior to its amendment in 1978. It appears that the Investigating Officer failed to submit the charge-sheet within the prescribed period and according to the High Court till ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-18-1983
Reported in : 1984CriLJ545; 23(1983)DLT499; 1983RLR554
ORDER1. The Peoples' Patriotic Front New Delhi acting through its Executive Chairman, Smt. Nirmala Prasad (since then dead) filed a complaint under Sections 109, 120-B, 161, 165A, 409 and 420, IPC in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on 3-8-1982 against the following persons : (1) Shri K. K. Birla, Chairman. Hindustan Times Ltd., (2) Shri Kamal Nath M.P., (3) Shri Harish Jain, Director. Hindustan Monark (P) Ltd., (4) Hindustan Monark (P) Ltd., (5) Directors of Hindustan Monark (P) Ltd., (6) M/s Kuo Oil, Hong Kong, (7) Directors of M/s Kuo Oil, Hong Kong, and (8) Shri P. C. Sethi, the then Union Minister for Petroleum and Chemicals. Smt. Nirmala Parsad was examined on oath on 3-9-1982 and the case was adjourned for remaining evidence. She died on 13-10-1982. On 27-11-1982 Shri Jaya Narain moved two applications, one that he be substituted in her place, and two the concerned file of the Department of Petroleum be summoned. The learned Magistrate was of the view that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-08-1983
Reported in : 1984(16)ELT190(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. Few facts are to be noticed in order to appreciate the relevant circumstances under which this group of Misc-Criminal Applications has been placed before us. 2. The Customs Officers of Ahmedabad effected seizure of gold worth Rs. 1.40 crores besides miscellaneous foreign goods worth about Rs. 40,000/- Indian currency of Rs. 72,766.00 ps. and a pistol of American made with six live cartridges and a couple of vehicles from bungalow No. 3, at Shwethpark Society, Budharpura, in the city of Ahmedabad on 15/16 April, 1982. In connection with this seizure several persons suspected to have been connected with the case were arrested and produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, from time to time. Mohamad Akhtar Hussain, alias 'Kadar Ahmed Vagher Bhatti', applicant herein in this group of applications who is alleged to be the chief culprit in this case was arrested at about 18.30 hrs. on April 20, 1982 by the Customs Officers as they suspected him to be guilty of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Decided on : Jun-15-1983
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1904
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, Actg. C.J.1. In reporting this case under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, that being the Code still applying in Sikkim the learned Sessions Judge has confessed his inability to understand the nature of the proceeding initiated by the lower Court, the procedure followed therefor and the provisions of law applied and invoked therein. All the learned Counsel appearing before him for the parties, including the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, however submitted that the proceeding, which was initiated, purported to be under Section 145 of the Code and the learned Sessions Judge also having decided to proceed on that basis, reported the case to this Court for necessary orders, as according to him, not only the impugned order was passed in utter non-compliance with the provisions of Section 145 of the Code, but was also of a nature which could not be passed under that section.2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-31-1983
Reported in : 1983(2)BomCR787
M.P. Kanade, J.1. The petitioner-original accused was prosecuted under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, having been found in possession of battery connections belonging to the railways, on August 14, 1 974 at Matunga Workshop. The said case was numbered as 255/S of 1974. The prosecution, led the evidence of one Nasaruddin Rakshak attached to Railway Protection Force, Post Matunga. In his evidence the said witness stated that the property seized from the accused had no specific marks indicating that the property belonged to the railways. No further evidence was led by the prosecution and the learned Magistrate on the basis of the said evidence discharged the accused on June 25, 1976.2. It is thereafter criminal case bearing Case No. 115/S of 1 977 was filed on the same facts. No leave was obtained by the prosecution to file a fresh complaint. It further appears that no objection was taken regarding the maintainability of the second complaint. However...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-09-1983
Reported in : (1985)1GLR162
M.B. Shah, J.1. The petitioner-Original complainant has filed the Special Criminal Application under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India wherein he has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 20th July 1982, passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 264/81 by the Additional City Sessions Judge. Court No. 20. Ahmedabad by which he has confirmed the order dated 30th September 1981 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Court No. 9. Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 2284/80.2. The petitioner is a tenant of one room situated in Bundug Flats in Juna Vadaj, Ahmedabad and he was using the said room as a shop for carrying on his business as a tailor in the name and style of 'Love Light Tailors'. One Kantilal Ishwarlal was a landlord of the said premises and from him he took the said premises on rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. To the owner he had paid Rs. 11,501/- as deposit. Thereafter respondent No. 2 purchased the said premises from the orig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-16-1983
Reported in : (1984)2GLR1012
A.P. Ravani, J.1. It is often said that human wisdom and good sense has limits. But it appears that technical niceties and ingenuous devices invented and adopted with a view to frustrate the ends of justice are limitless. Why is the judicial system respected Is it because it is capable of upholding technicalities regardless of its consequences in real life These questions arise in the background of the maintenance proceedings instituted by the petitioner-wife whose prayer for enhancement of maintenance has been rejected on hyper-technical considerations.2. Petitioner is the divorced wife of opponent No. 1. The marriage between the parties took place some time in the year 1970. Thereafter it appears that both of them pulled on well together for some time. Out of the wedlock a daughter named Bilkish was born. Within a month or two, after the birth of the daughter, the opponent-husband married a second wife and gave divorce (Talaq) to the petitioner. Sometime in November 1976, the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-28-1983
Reported in : AIR1983Cal353
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This appeal raises various questions about an order of suspension of a dealer appointed under the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964 and also challenges an enquiry into certain alleged complaints as to why the dealership of the respondent should not be cancelled. Before we deal with the questions raised in this appeal, which are many and various, it will be relevant to refer to certain facts which the learned Trial Judge has noted. 2. One Brij Mohan Gupta, who was the original petitioner before the learned Trial Judge, was appointed the authorised Rationing dealer under the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964. He is the Proprietor of a Ration Shop No. 3437 at 166/4, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Calcutta. On the 19th Dec. 1981 the officers of the Food Department, Government of West Bengal seized certain records of the said shop, being registers, books of accounts and cash memos and removed the same from the shop. The petitioner thereafter and on the same day filed a c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-28-1983
Reported in : 1984(2)Crimes67; 25(1984)DLT306; 1984(6)DRJ54; 1984RLR37
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out a complaint filed by Ram Avtar, respondent No. I, against his father, petitioner No. I, his brother petitioner No. 2, and a cousin, petitioner No. 3, on the allegations that the petitioners were party to a conspiracy to defraud the complainant to commit acts of misappropriation and in furtherance of the conspiracy, the petitioners committed offences of fraud, misappropriation, forgery and using forged documents in the Civil Court and certain authorities thereby committing offences under Section 406, 420, 467, 568 and 471 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code . The complaint, which is rather clumsily drawn, is an apparent sequel to disputes between Ram Avtar, on the one hand, and his father and brother, on the other, and has its genesis in the family partnership in the name and style of M, Silco, of which the complainant was a partner. The partnership apparently holds valuable premises,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-31-1983
Reported in : 31(1987)DLT189
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The petitioner, S. Mohinder Singh Saluja is the owner/landlord of the property no. 6/6 W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. M/s Vanson Shoes, a registered partnership firm, to start with, was the tenant of the part of the ground floor of the said premises but in the year 1971, they became the tenant of the whole of the ground floor, including the mezzanine floor at a consolidated rent of Rs 435.00 per mensem Subsequently the rent was increased to Rs. 515.00 including the water charges. The rent has since been paid to the landlord till the tiling of the present complaint u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) The case set up by the tenant in brief is that at the time of the creation of the tenancy, it was agreed between the parties that the respondent landlord will carry out the white wash and minor repairs of the tenancy premises. In spite of the repealed requests and reminders, the landlord failed to get the premises in good shape as per the terms of the rent note....
Tag this Judgment!