Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-05-1989
Reported in : 1990(2)BomCR196; 1990CriLJ152
ORDER1. Since both these revision arise out of a common judgment, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Criminal Revision Application No. 81 of 1988 has been filed at the instance of the accused who convicted by the trial Court for the offence under S. 325 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/- and R.I. for one day i.e. till rising of the Court. That order was challenged by the accused before the Session Judge, Nagpur. The learned Session Judge vide order dated 19-4-1988 dismissed the appeal. However while dismissing the appeal. he modified the sentence to two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. It is this order which is being challenged before me by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 81 of 1988.3. Criminal Revision Application No. 168 of 1988 is filed at the instance of complainant Shrawan for enhancement of sentence. According to him, the sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- for offen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-12-1989
Reported in : 1990CriLJ2467; 1990(2)Crimes582; 40(1990)DLT386; I(1990)DMC580; 1990(18)DRJ241; 1990RLR21
ORDER1. These two applications have been moved by the petitioner, one for seeking restoration of the criminal revision No. 187/89 (Cr. M. 298/89) which came to be dismissed on September 22, 1989 and the other (Cr. M. 266/89) seeking condensation of delay in moving the said application. 2. The criminal revision had been brought under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an order dated August 4, 1988, of Shri Shiv Charan, Metropolitan Magistrate, seeking the relief that warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner may be cancelled. The warrants of arrest appear to have been issued for non-payment of arrears of maintenance. On September 22, 1989, the following order was made : 'Present : None of the petitioner. Ms. Usha Bhatia in person. Crl.R. 187/89 and Crl.M. 265 and 266/89 No one has turned up on behalf of the petitioner to pursue the matter. I have gone through the file and find no merit in this petition. Dismissed.' 3. So, it is evident from the aforesaid order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-23-1989
Reported in : [1990]186ITR623(Mad)
Arunachalam, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Madras District Social Welfare Association, which is an association founded with the object of purifying public life and also exposing corrupt elements. This application seeks to implead the petitioner as a party respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2854 of 1988 pending in this court. In Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2854 of 1988, the first respondent is the petitioner and the second respondent is the respondent. The second respondent has filed a complaint against the first respondent before the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic offences, Egmore, Madras, alleging that the first respondent who had been granted a loan of Rs. 4,65,000 on April 17, 1986 by the A.I.A.D.M.K. party and admittedy received by her on April 18, 1986, violated Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, the contravention o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-27-1989
Reported in : ILR1990KAR376; 1990(3)KarLJ499
ORDERRamachandraiah, J.1. These two criminal revision petitions filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are disposed of by a common order at the Admission stage itself as agreed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned State Public Prosecutor as they involve same facts and points of law for consideration.2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kolar Gold Fields (K.G.F) seized from the residential house of one Sri V, Ramaswamy, who is the husband of petitioner Smt. Shamaladevi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 417/1989 and from the premises of Kamadenu Stores, Vijayanagar, K.G.F. which was in the occupation of one Sri D. Soundararajalu, who is the husband of petitioner Smt. S. Sukanya, also called as Suganya & Suguna in Criminal Revision Petition No. 418/1989 sufficiently huge quantity of fire works and sparklers estimated to be of the value of Rs. 1,06,851/- and Rs. 74,738/- respectively on the ground that the said two persons had no licenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-06-1989
Reported in : 1989(2)WLN198
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is a petition by Khalid alias Rasheed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated January 18, 1989 passed in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1989 (State v. Major Singh and Ors.) where by he directed framing of charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrapic Substances Act, 1985 to commit an offence under Chapter-IV of the said Act.2. Facts in brief are that according to the prosecution Malluram Assistant Sub-Inspector gave an information on September 20, 1988 regarding some tracks to camel and two persons having been found near Indo-Pak International Border. On the evening of that day the Station House Officer, Poongal reached Chak 4 Pawli and found tracks going upto that place. This created suspicion in his mind that the camel and the two persons were in the same Abadi. The SHO and the Police party, therefore, surrounded this Chak and on the morning of September...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-20-1989
Reported in : 1990(47)ELT352(Bom)
1. By this Petition under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the original accused Nos. 4 and 5 in case No. 433/S of 1987 of the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bombay, seek a direction quashing the process issued against them along with the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 to 12 upon a complaint lodged by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, for offences punishable under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Sections 9(1)(b), 9(1)(bb), 9(1)(bbb), 9(1)(c) read with Section 9(1)(d) and 9(1)(i) and 9-AA of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 as well as offences punishable under Sections 193 r/w. 192 I.P.C.2. Respondent No. 1 - Assistant Collector of Central Excises filed a complaint alleging that he was authorised to file a complaint for offences under the Central Excises and Salt Act and that he was a public servant. The accused No. 1 - M/s. Pure Drinks Pvt. Ltd. was a company manufacturing aerated water falling under Chapter No. 22 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-22-1989
Reported in : 1990(1)BomCR449; 1991CriLJ437; 1990(47)ELT240(Bom)
1. The question which arises for consideration is whether the Sessions Court possesses legal authority to stay the operation of the Order of a Magistrate releasing the accused on bail.2. The petitioners are the accused in a case under the Customs Act. They were arrested on 15th September, 1989 and produced before the Magistrate on 16th September, 1989. By the Order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Bombay, dated 16th September, 1989 in Remand Application No. 968 of 1989, they were remanded to custody. However on 23rd October, 1989 they were released on bail. On 24th October, 1989, the Assistant Collector of Customs the Respondent No. 1, preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 299 of 1989 before the Sessions Court of Greater Bombay. On the same day, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, who was hearing criminal applications, stayed the operation of the Order releasing the petitioners on bail. The Order granting stay of the operation of bail is impugned in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-17-1989
Reported in : ILR1989Delhi632; 1989RLR115
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This criminal revision is directed against judgment dated October 4, 1985, of Shri V. S. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by which he had allowed the criminal revision filed by respondents-Joginder Lal and Smt. Taro Devi and had quashed the proceeding initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for Short 'Cr. P.C.') and also the order by which the shop in question had been attached under Section 146 Criminal Procedure Code . (2) Facts leading to the filing of the present petition, in brier, are that the petitioner's father Atam Parkash was allottee of Shop No. 277, Old Lajpat Rai Market. Delhi mid was given possession of the same by the Rehabilitation Department on January 31, 1960. Atam Parkash had entered into a partnership with his son-in-law Pritam Dass on March 26, 1968 and a partnership business in the electronics and allied goods was carried on in the said shop. The said partnership was stated to be at will and the. name of the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-13-1989
Reported in : (1989)91BOMLR692; 1990CriLJ351; 1989MhLJ604
ORDER1. The essential controversy in this revision application is whether Sarita and Sharmila, who are admittedly 15 and 17 years old, are to be tried by the Court of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or to be proceeded with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 by the authorities mentioned thereunder.2. The facts are very simple. For an offence of murder and other related offences under S. 324 and others purported to have been committed on 19th April, 1988, the petitioners along with Satish Narayan Sawant, Mohan Narayan Sawant and Smt. Yeshoda Narayan Sawant were chargesheeted by the Ponda Police. On perusal of the chargesheet on July 8, 1988 the Judicial Magistrate, Ponda, committed aforementioned Satish, Mohan and Smt. Yeshoda to the Court of Session to answer the charge under Sections 302, 323, and 324 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly this was an order made under S. 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and while doing that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-06-1989
Reported in : 1990CriLJ903
ORDER1. The applicants herein are respectively accused Nos. 5 and 4 in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom the Applicants applied for bail in N.D.P.S. Special Remand Application No. 360 of 1989, rejected the application of the Applicants as also those of the remaining three accused. The Applicants have preferred this application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Between 23rd July, 1989 and 23rd August, 1989, three packets containing 8 Kgs. of Heroin, four parcels containing 21.100 Kgs. of Methaqualene powder and four parcels containing 23 Kgs. of Mandrex tablets were seized. Some more parcels addressed to people in different countries were also seized.During the investigation, Bombay Telephone No. 577094 came to the knowledge of investigating Officers. The telephone was in Flat No. 402, Building No. B-1, Vaishali Nagar, Jogeshwari (West)...
Tag this Judgment!