Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-19-1990
Reported in : 1991CriLJ1745
ORDER1. The Inspector of Police, C.B., C.I.D., Madras, on the lodging of a report, registered a case against the petitioners herein for alleged offences under section 120B read with Sections 147, 148, 364, 302 and 201, I.P.C. and took up investigation. The investigation revealed that six murders were committed on different dates by the petitioners and consequently they were arrested and later remanded to custody by the Magistrate, as detailed below : S. No. Name of Petitioner Date of arrest Date of remand 1 Sankar alias Gowri Sankar 6-7-1988 7-7-1988 2 Mohan 15-7-1988 15-7-1988 3 Eldin alias Albert 15-8-1988 16-8-1988 4 Shivaji 29-8-1988 29-8-1988 5. Jayavelu 6-7-1988 7-7-1988 6. Ravi 9-8-1988 10-8-1988 7. Selvam alias Selvan alias Selvaraj 9-8-1988 10-8-1988 8. Raman alias Rajaraman 10-8-1988 11-8-1988 9. Palani 8-8-1988 9-8-1988 10. Paramasivam 8-8-1988 9-8-1988 The remand periods were extended on various dates by the Magistrate time and again. The petitioners were placed under deten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-06-1990
Reported in : I(1991)DMC524
D.J. Moharir, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the rejection of applicant's contention that in view of the provisions of The Muslim Women's Act, 1986, he was no more liable to make provision for the maintenance of his daughter, after the latter attained the age of the two years. Facts may be stated thus, in brief.2. The present petitioner Syed Mushtaque was married to Smt. Syeda Kaniz Sibtain on 13-5-1984 at Nagpur. The child Tasneem Kausar was born to the couple on 6-6-1985. She therefore attained the age of two years on 6-6-1987. In the meanwhile on 30th October, 1985, the couple was divorced. Smt. Syeda Kaniz Sibtain quite obviously a well educated person, is a teacher in the Municipal High School at Nagpur under the Corporation of City of Nagpur. Being herself a person who had her own means of livlihood and was earning, she did not therefore herself seek any amount by way of maintenance from her husband. However on behalf of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-27-1990
Reported in : 1991CriLJ2766
ORDER1. These two Criminal Writ Petitions filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be disposed of through a common judgment. The petitions are substantially between the same parties and the points of law and the facts that are involved are also common. The petitions raiseissues of considerable importance and of far-reaching consequence. I am, therefore, outlining the brief heads that fall for determination in these petitions which are as follows:-- A) What are the rights that have vested in the Custodian under the Textile undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983 after takeover, and whether the property of the Company, namely, the proprietorship of the existing Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 can in law be said to have been transmitted to the Custodian as a consequence of such take-over? B) Whether the Custodian, after such takeover, can be categorised only as the permitted user, or whether the proprietorshi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-20-1990
Reported in : 1991(2)BomCR485; (1991)93BOMLR432
D.J. Moharir, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as also under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners pray for quashing of a criminal case pending against them ever since the year 1983. The prosecution in this case is for commission of offence under section 17(1)(f), 17(1)(g), 39(3)(a) and 40(2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and which offences are punishable under section 81 of the said Act and in respect of which the authority to make a complaint has to be as per the provisions of section 35 of the said Act. No Court can take cognizance of any offence unless a complaint is made by the Chief Warden or such other officer as the State Government may authorise in this behalf. Originally two separate complaints were filed. The petitioner No. 1 was proceeded against in Criminal Case No. 37 of 1981 and petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 in Criminal Case No. 36 of 1981, both launched in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-09-1990
Reported in : ILR1990Delhi84
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) In these two petitions filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have sought anticipatory bail in respect of the case registered as F.I.R. No. 198/89 under Sections 498A, 406 etc. of the Median Penal Code. (2) The short question which has arisen is whether Mr. K.K. Sud, counsel who has appeared on behalf of the complainant, should be heard in the matter or not Mr. P. P. Grover, counsel for the petitioners in these matters, has strongly objected to giving any hearing to the counsel for the complainant. (3) It is true that only the State through the Delhi Administration has been joined as respondent in these two petitons and as a matter of fact, a case which the police has investigated on the basis of the F.I.R. No. 198189 only the State is the necessary party. The complainant or the witnesses who might have been examined in support of the case during the investigation are neither necessary nor proper parties. The offences which are com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-04-1990
Reported in : 1992(1)BomCR233
G.D. Kamat, J.1. In this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioners are questioning the legality and propriety of the order of the Executive Magistrate, Pernem, dated 1st August, 1990, in Case No. JM/MAG/39/90 and for quashing the proceedings initiated thereunder.2. By the Order dated 1st August, 1990 issued under section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Executive Magistrate, the petitioners are directed to attend the Court of the Executive Magistrate on the 9th day of August, 1990, to show cause as to why they should not be required to enter into a bond of Rs.10,000/- each and also give sureties each by a bond of like amount under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code to maintain peace for a term of one year. The same order further directs the petitioner in the meantime to enter into a personal bond and to furnish sureties for the same amount as interim measure that they shall maintain peace. It is needless to say that this order is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-30-1990
Reported in : (1991)93BOMLR94
M.M. Qazi, J.1. The Sessions Case No. 10 of 1985 is pending before the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, where nine accused are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions trial has arisen out of an incident dated October 16, 1984. Since the accused also suffered injuries, they reported the matter to the police and the police initiated Criminal Case No. 259 of 1984 against the complainants. They are being prosecuted for the offences under Sections 147, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadchiroli. Since both the cases have arisen out of the same incident, the Public Prosecutor, Chandrapur, moved the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur on August 17, 1989 for calling the record of Criminal Case No. 259 of 1984 Crime No. 126/1984 : State v. Tapan and Ors. pending before the J.M.F.C. Gadchiroli and requested him to try the case himself. The said application was opposed on behalf of the present app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-13-1990
Reported in : 1991(2)BomCR550; (1990)92BOMLR679; 1991CriLJ1256; 1991(1)MhLj165
ORDER1. This is a petition filed challenging the order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, on 16th July 1986 and by which order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Revision Application No. 315 of 1985 and set aside the order passed on 18th November 1985 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Bombay, in Case No. 45/N/84 on his file.2. The petitioner had filed an application before the learned Magistrate under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the following allegations :The premises, more particularly described in para 2 of the order, were in possession of the petitioner. The structure was divided into two parts. One part was used by the petitioner for the purposes of running a shop in the name and style of 'Star Electrical works' which shop premises was used by the brother of the Petitioner. The remaining portion was used by the petitioner for the purposes of residence. The Respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-09-1990
Reported in : 1991(1)BomCR626; 1991CriLJ229
ORDER1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 7th April, 1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate F.C., Margao, Goa in Criminal Misc. Application No. 30/C/90 the Collector of Customs has preferred this Criminal Writ Petition seeking the same to be quashed and set aside on the following facts.2. On a reasonable belief that respondent No. 1 along with others is involved in smuggling activities and further on the reasonable belief that respondent No. 1 had her residence at Merces Wadi, Taluka Tiswadi, is in possession of certain currency notes directly related to the offence of smuggling goods, carried out a raid on the house of respondent No. 1 on 18th February, 1990 and seized currency notes worth Rs. 22,000/- from the said house.3. On 31st March, 1990 respondent No. 1 Smt. Rege moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao seeking release of the currency notes seized from her residence by the Assistant Collector. On 7-4-1990 the said application came up for hearing aft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-09-1990
Reported in : 1991CriLJ1774; 1990RLR131
ORDER1. In these two petitions filed under section 438 of the code of criminal Procedure, the petitioners have sought anticipatory bail in respect of the case registered as F.I.R. No. 198/89 under Sections 498-A, 406 etc. of the Penal Code. 2. The short question which has arisen is whether Mr. K. K. Sud, counsel who has appeared on behalf of the complainant, should be heard in the matter or not Mr. P. P. Grover, counsel for the petitioners in these matters, has strongly objected to giving any hearing to the counsel for the complainant. 3. It is true that only the State through the Delhi Administration has been joined as respondent in these two petitions and as a matter of fact, a case which the police has investigated on the basis of the F.I.R. No. 198/89 only the State is the necessary party. The complainant or the witnesses who might have been examined in support of the case during the investigation are neither necessary nor proper parties. The offences which are committed by the per...
Tag this Judgment!