Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1961Guj151; (1961)2GLR343
Bhagwati, J.1. This Second Appeal raises a question of considerable importance regarding proprietary rights in lands granted by Rulers of Indian States before the merger of those States with the Dominion of India and the effect of the merger on such proprietary rights. Several arguments have been addressed to us relating to different aspects of this question and the arguments have been both able and ingenious. In order to understand and appreciate these arguments, it is necessary to set out the facts giving rise to this appeal. The facts are not many and may be briefly stated as follows:2. Prior to 15th August 1947, the Sant State was an independent native State under the paramountcy of the British Crown. On 15th August 1947, India obtained independence and became a Dominion by reason of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. At the same time, the sovereignty of the British Crown over the Indian States lapsed by reason of Section 7 of that Act and as a result thereof, the Sant State became...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1961CriLJ78
ORDERBhagwati, J.1. The short and interesting question' which arises in this Criminal Revision Application is as regards the weight to be attached to a report of a Chemical Examiner when the report is tender ed as evidence under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without summoning and examining the Chemical Examiner as to the subject-matter of the report. The accused was tried by the Jadicial Magistrate, First Class, Broach for the offence of consuming liquor tinder Section 66(1)(b) oft the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 hereinafter referred to by me as the Act. The charge against-the accused was that on 16th December, 1959 at about 5-45 P.M., he was found on a public road having consumed liquor in contravention of the provisions of the Act. A sample of the blood of1 the accused was taken by the police and submitted to the Chemical Examiner to the Government for determining the concentration of alcohol in the-blood. Though the sample of the blood was taken on 16th' December, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR33
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal of the respondent who was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act for having contravened Section 18(2) of the same Act in that he did not send copies of the accounts in respect of three money-lending transactions dated 24-12-57 27 and 30-12-57 relating to loans advanced by him to Kisnad Group Co-operative Multi-purpose Society. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Broach who tried the case acquitted the respondent on the ground that a loan to a Co-operative society was not included in the definition of loan contained in Section 2(9) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act. On this ground he acquitted the respondent although according to the Magistrate all the facts about the advancing of the loans were admitted by the respondent who was accused.2. In appeal it is contended by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that the view taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1962CriLJ142; (1961)GLR664
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by one Naginlal Nandlal, who was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat, under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Judge acquitted accused No. 2.2. The prosecution case was that the complainant Ratilal Somabhai, used to deal in illicit liquor and used to give bribes generally to the members of the police force. It is also alleged that after some time the complainant stopped dealing in illicit liquor and that the two police constables, who were accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the trial, made a demand from him for the payment of Rs. 25/- as bribe. As the complainant had stopped his dealing in illicit liquor, he went and gave information to the P.S.I. Mansuri of the Anti-Corruption Department, who recorded his information on 31.1.60. On 1.2.60, P.S.I., Mansuri made a report to the Judicial Magistrate, First class Surat, and asked for permission to investigates fresh a permission was necess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR117
A.R. Bakshi, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, against the order dated 22nd June 1957 passed by the learned District Judge, Broach in Miss. Application No. 14 of 1956 filed before him under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, setting aside the order passed by the Charity Commissioner in Change Application No. 181 of 1953.2. A few facts relating to this matter may be stated. On 25th November 1953 a report of a change in the trustees was made to the Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 22 of the Act. That application was contested by those respondents who claimed themselves to be the members of the Broach Jain Sangh having the right to appoint trustees. An enquiry under the provisions of Section 22 was started and was transferred to the Deputy Charity Commissioner who held the enquiry with the aid of assessors. On a consideration of the evidence, the Deputy Charity Commissioner held that the old trustees wanted to resign, but...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)0GLR492
Raju, J.1. This is a first appeal by the original plaintiff J. J. Mody who was appointed as regional publicity officer on 8 November, 1949. He was dismissed from service on 6 December, 1950 after having been suspended from service earlier, and a departmental inquiry was held into the allegations that he had made some defamatory aspersions against some Ministers of the Government of the Bombay State. This order of dismissal was, however, set aside in Civil Suit No. 10 of 1952 filed by the appellant. After the decision of that suit, the Government passed an order on 26 May, 1954 continuing his suspension from 6 December, 1950 and gave second notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be removed from service. On 29 December, 1954, the Government passed an order dismissing the appellant from service. The present suit was thereupon filed by the appellant on 30 September, 1955 for a declaration that he is not guilty of any misconduct, that the second order of suspension dated 26...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1962Guj197; (1962)IILLJ507Guj
Raju, J. 1. This is a first appeal by the original plaintiff J. J. Mody, who was appointed is Regional Publicity Officer on 8-11-1949. He was dismissed from service on 6-12-1950 after having been suspended from service earlier, and a departmental inquiry was held into the allegations that he had made some defamatory aspersions against some Ministers of the Government of the Bombay State. This order cf dismissal was, however, set aside in Civil Suit No. 10 of 1952 filed by the appellant. After the decision of that suit the Government passed an order on 26-5-54 continuing his suspension from 6-12-1950 and gave a second notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be removed from service. On 20-12-1954, the Government passed an order dismissing the appellant from service. The present suit was thereupon filed by the appellant on 30-9-1955 for a declaration that he is not guilty of any misconduct, that tho second order of suspension dated 26-5-1954, and the second order of dismis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj15; 1963CriLJ162; (1962)GLR701
Shelat, J.12. On behalf of the accused, Mr. Mankad raisedcertain questions of law regarding the jurisdiction of thelearned trial Judge and misjoinder of charges. Briefly stated, his contentions were as follows:(1) That the learned Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the accused on the charge under Section 477A of the Penal Code.(2) That the trial suffered from illegality as thecharges were in contravention of Sections 233 and 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as the offences or criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Penal Code, misconduct arising from the acts of criminal breach of trust and falsifications of accounts in respect of the sums of Rs. 40/-, Rs. 15/- and Rs. 392/- could not be joined together and the accused could not be validly tried in one joint trial.(3) That the acts of misconduct as defined in 5. 5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were in respect of four distinct sums, viz., Rs. 40/-, Rs. 15/-, Rs. 20/-end Rs. 392/- and as the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1962Guj194; (1962)0GLR85
Shelat, J.1. This is a petition for a writ of prohibitionrestraining the respondents from deporting orexterning the petitioner from out of the territoryof India, the petitioner's case being that he is acitizen of India.2. The petitioner entered India on November 17, 1954. on a Pakistani passport dated the 2nd of November 1954 bearing No. 239028. After coming to India he was employed by his cousin, one Yusuf Ismail Lala, a forest contractor carrying on business in Godhra, first as a cleaner and thereafter as a driver of a motor-truck. The petitioner obtained a licence from the R.T.O.. Baroda, for . the purpose of enabling him to drive the motortruck, and got himself married to one Kulsum, the daughter of Moosa Gafur of village Vejalpur in district Panchmahals. Thereafter he was prosecuted in criminal case No. 743 of 1958 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godhra, on a charge under See. 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, read with paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj32
K.K. Mehta, J.1. This is a civil revision application against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Morvi, allowing an Amendment of the prayer by the substituted applicant in Probate Case No. 8/1957 on the file of the learned Judge. The matter arises this way:-The deceased testatrix Bai Jivubai made a will dated 14th December, 1946, appointing one Jadeja Shivubha Madhavsang as an executor of her said will. After the death of the testatrix, Shivubha applied for the probate of the will on 6th February, 1957. The four opponents to the said application were the heirs of the deceased and each of them was a beneficiary under the will of the deceased testatrix. The applicant executor died pending probate proceedings on 17th January, 1960. On the 25th January, 1960, opponent No. 1 in the original Probate Application, Jadeja Mangalsinhji Shivsinhji, who is also opponent No. 1 in the present revision application applied to the Probate Court that he be transposed as a plain...
Tag this Judgment!