Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-23-1991
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2998
Mishra, J.1. The Petitioner herein has moved for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, on behalf of his friends (1) Ravi alias Puli Ravi alias Kaveti S/o. Ramaiah (2) Ganga Rao (3) Narayana (4) Durga Rao and (5) Lakshmiah, who it is not known why, were arrested on 18-7-1988 and remanded to custody on 31-9-1988. Their remand was extended from time to time. 2. It is said in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and that is all, which, if stated, would give us an idea of the legal rights pleaded by the petitioner : 'The charge-sheet was not filed within ninety days and as such the remanding Magistrate ought to have released the detenus on bail. Hence the detention is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to 167(2), Cr.P.C. and totally illegal'.3. The contents of the cryptic petition had been returned by the respondents in the same cryptic way, except that in one counter-affidavit we find a statement that the abovenamed persons have been committed to the Court of Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-04-1991
Reported in : 1993CriLJ2621
ORDERB.P. Singh, J.1. The applicant, Mohammad Mian, is being prosecuted for committing the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Ojhani, District Budaun.2. According to recital in the F.I.R., Budha was shot dead by the applicant, Mohammad Mian, on 20-6-1989 at 7.00 P.M. near the culvert of Bilsi Road, Ojhani. A charge sheet was submitted against the applicant under Section 302 I.P.C. and the case S.T. No. 240 of 1989-- is pending in the court of learned sessions Judge, Budaun.3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that there has been inordinate delay in the trial of the case and as the applicant has been in jail for more than two years, he may be enlarged on bail. Reliance has been placed upon the case of Hussainara v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 : (1979 Cri LJ 1036). In the case of Hussainara the Supreme Court has observed as follows at page 1041 (of Cri LJ) :--We think that even under our Constitution, though speedy trial is not specifical...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-09-1991
Reported in : 1992(2)BomCR560; 1992CriLJ1838; 1992(1)MhLj427
ORDER1. Criminal Application No. 46 of 1989 is a proceedings initiated under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Criminal Application No. 585 of 1991 was filed initially as Criminal Revision petition, but under the orders passed today, the same was allowed to be converted into an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both of these applications involve a common question of law, and the facts are more or less similar. Therefore, with the consent of the Advocates for the parties, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. Both of them are petitions made by wives, whose claim under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance has been disallowed by both the Courts below. 2. The facts, as-much-as they are relevant for the purposes of this decision in Criminal Application No. 46 of 1989 are as follows. The petitioner-wife had preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, bearing Criminal Mi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-16-1991
Reported in : 1992(2)BomCR194
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Petitioner and respondent No. 1 married each other in the year 1982. But as the destiny would have it, this happy wedlock was not to last long. Though on 14th August 1984, Swapna - a daughter was given by God to both, parties wanted to separate and on 2-1-1990 a divorce by the mutual consent was effected. In the deed of divorce, it was agreed that father - petitioner in this revision application - would be responsible for maintenance, education and marriage of Sapana, and the child was given in custody of the father. But it was agreed that on the occasion of festivals and after each two months father will bring the minor to mother and if father ill-treats Sapana, then mother will take her custody by legal means. It appears that even this arrangement did not work. It is alleged that in May 1990, the respondent mother took away Sapana and did not return her to the father. Therefore, father was constrained to file an application bearing Misc. Criminal Application ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-10-1991
Reported in : 1992(1)BomCR398
M.F. Saldanha J.1. This criminal writ petition is directed against the common judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 120 of 1989 and Criminal Revision Application No. 204 of 1989. This order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, dated 3/4 July, 1991 disposes of the two Criminal Revision Applications that were filed before him in respect of a dispute concerning a small tailoring shop situate at CTS 269, Ganesh peth, Pune. Briefly stated, the premises originally stood in the name of Tukaram Shankar Kalbare, and it is also relevant to mention that the licence in respect of the disputed premises stood in his name. Tukaram died on 6-5-1985, after which on 13-6-1985 the licence was transferred to the name of his widow Sundrabai. It is more or less common ground that the widow Sundrabai is advanced in years and her age as shown in the proceeding is 85 years. It is unnecessary for me to recount the genesis of the dispute that has ultimately culminated in this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-12-1991
Reported in : 1993CriLJ2984
ORDER1. This petition/criminal revision application, presented by the State of Maharashtra, is directed against a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, dated 26-4-1991. Through this petition, the State of Maharashtra has assailed the correctness of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the respondent, whom I shall refer to as 'the Accused', has been discharged of certain offences punishable under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 a few facts that are relevant for the decision of this criminal revision application are alone being recounted by me. I need to prefix this judgment with the observations that this particular litigation has been preceded by a score of petitions addressed to the different Courts before which the prosecution was pending, to the High Court and, on more than one occasion, to the Supreme Court. The matter has been vigorously contested and it has been the contention of the Accus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-12-1991
Reported in : 1993(3)BomCR604
B.U. Wahane, J.1. At the outset, it needs mention that inspite of the order dated 11th March, 1981, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhandara, in Criminal Revision Application No. 63 of 1980, Lakhanlal and another v. Dulichand and two others, by which the proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Misc. Criminal Case No. 62 of 1980, and also the order dated 27-10-1980, were quashed and set aside, neither the parties nor their learned Counsel, took pains to read and try to understand the implications of the order dated 11-3-1981 and, therefore, continued the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C., filing revision applications for the last more than ten years. The order dated 11-3-1981 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhandara was challenged in this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 116 of 1981. By the judgment and order dated 5-8-1981, this Court confirmed the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara. Thus, none cared of the orders refe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-05-1991
Reported in : 1992(1)ALT146; 1992CriLJ1828
ORDER1. The petitioner prays for a writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to FIRs. in Crimes Nos. 5 of 1990 and 86 of 1990 issued by the respondents and quash the same on the ground that the FIRs. do not disclose commission of any offence. 2. The petitioner is carrying on business in the name and style of A1-Sameer Enterprises at 504, Mount Nassir Apartments, Saifabad, Hyderabad. In the same building another person by name Rafiullah Khan is carrying on business of export of mineral salts, etc., under the name and style of A1-Fatah Exim Services. The said Rafiullah Khan has given general power of attorney in favour of his son Rahamtullah Khan. The side Rafiullah Khan is having current account in the State Bank of India, Charminar branch. He hails from Nellore District. One Syed Abdul Alam, who is an employee of the State Bank of India, worked in the S.B.I. branch at Gudur in Nellore District, thus Rafiullah Khan and Syed Abdul Alam became friends. Syed Abdul Alam was transferre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Mar-01-1991
Reported in : 1992CriLJ1063
ORDERA.M. Mir, J.1. Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of 1988 have been directed against the orders passed by the Tehsildar, Executive Magistrate, 1st Class, Samba in the proceedings taken in terms of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure somewhere in the beginning of last fortnight of 1987. The orders impugned in these four revision petitions are sterio-type. The Executive Magistrate has while proceeing in terms of the abovementioned provision of law drawn up orders, which are more orders of attachment rather than preliminary orders. This order will dispose of all the four revision petitions as the points of law involved are identical.2. The Executive Magistrate has drawn up an order suggesting that he had perused the application and the relevant documents and it appeared that the non-applicants therein had been forcibly dispossessed. The learned Executive Magistrate ordered that the non-applicants be asked to file their objections and documents in support of thei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-13-1991
Reported in : (1992)104CTR(Mad)143; [1992]195ITR137(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. Thiru G. S. R. Krishnamurthi (the petitioner herein) is accused No. 1 in E. O. C. C. No. 302 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Egmore, Madras-600 008. 2. He is the Karta of the undivided family consisting of himself, his wife, Thirumathi C. Indira (accused No. 2), and children born of her, residing at No. 36, Neelakantha Metha Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Madras 600 017. His brother is Thiru G. Adhiseshagiri Rao (accused No. 3). 3. He, in his capacity as the karta of the undivided family, purchased a piece of agricultural land measuring 3 acres 24.5 cents in Saligramam, boarding Madras City, from Thiru A. K. Velan, his wife, Thirumathi A. K. V. Jayalakshmi and his sons, Thiru A. K. V. Vignani, Thiru A. K. V. Sivagnani and Thiru A. K. V. Kalaignani (accused Nos. 4 to 8), as per the deed registered on May 24, 1982 as document No. 2788 of 1982, before the Sub-registrar, Kodambakkam, for an apparent and rec...
Tag this Judgment!