Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-06-1999
Reported in : (2000)1GLR313
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These two appeals are filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 9.9.1991 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1988. The Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 1992 is for enhancement of the sentence imposed on the original accused no. 1- Dharsing Tikubha Vaghela for offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the IPC and the other appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 1992 is against the acquittal of the original accused no. 1 Dharsing Tikubha Vaghela for offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and the acquittal of accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 i.e. Jenubha Tikubha, Hematsing Kubersing and Tikubha Kubersingh for offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC.2. The prosecution version is that on 17.8.1987, which was the day following the day of Gokulashtami, a festival was being celebrated in the honour of Lord Krishna by one Vinubha Cheharsing who had invited young girls of the community for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-23-1999
Reported in : (1999)2GLR1830
M.S. Parikh, J.1. The appellant Raja alias Suresh Santramdas Kodwani, (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') stood his trial for the offences punishable u/S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act on the allegation that on 26/1/1988, at about 6.15 p.m. he assaulted deceased Pratapbhai Kundanbhai Kodwani at Royal Bakery with a poker, which he was having with him in violation of certain prohibitory orders issued by the Competent Police Authority and caused grievous hurt resulting into death of aforesaid Pratapbai Kundanbhai Kodwani within a short time. He was tried accordingly before the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 153 of 1988. At the conclusion of trial he was held guilty of having committed offence punishable u/S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted of the offence punishable u/S. 135 of the Bombay Police Act. He was accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by impugned judgment dated 16/1/1990 rendered b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-06-1999
Reported in : (2000)2GLR14
Patel, J.1. State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 1985 against the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot whereby the accused was acquitted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Appeal No. 512/85 is preferred under section 11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajkot releasing the accused on probation in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1985.2. Short facts of the case, as it emerges from the record, are as under :-2.1 The respondent-accused, who at the relevant time was aged about 19 years, was working with one Bhupendrapuri Gosai, PW. 4, who was doing business of Behl-puri. Deceased Balubhai Nathalal was carrying on his business of fruit in a hand-cart just near the place where Bhupendrapuri PW. 4 was carrying on the business. On 30.10.1980 at about 6.00/6.15 p.m, for collecting fresh water, the accused emptied the vessel by throwing the water on the side of the hand cart of the deceased ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-27-1999
Reported in : (2000)4GLR836
1. In this petition under the provisions of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order passed in Revision Application No. TEN.B.S. 105/92 dated 20.2.99 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By virtue of the said order, the tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in Tenancy Case No. 10372/82 dated 3.5.91 and order dated 17.5.92 passed by the Deputy Collector, Navsari in Tenancy Appeal No. 28/91.2. The facts pertaining to the case are as under. The petitioner was claiming to be a tenant in respect of lands bearing Blocks Nos. 147, 247, 146 and 148 situated at Village: Munsad and had therefore submitted an application under the provisions of sec. 70(b) and sec. 70(nb) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said application was rejected by the Mamlatdar and ALT by his order dated 3.5.91 on the ground that the petitioner was having family relation with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-13-1999
Reported in : (2000)1GLR111
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner has sought a direction on the Officer in charge of Navsari Police Station to trace out the respondents nos.1 and 2 along with his two children, namely, daughter Nabeelah and son Yaseen claiming custody of these children. According to the petitioner he and the respondent no.1, Shahida married on 11th July 1990 as per the Islamic rites. At that time the respondent no.1 was an Indian citizen. Thereafter, due to marriage she became a citizen of Botswana following the petitioner's citizenship. According to the petitioner a daughter and a son were born during the marriage and they are 8 and 4 years of age respectively. Some differences arose between the parties, as a result of which according to the petitioner the respondent no.1 left his house along with their two children. The petitioner learnt that they had crossed the border of that country. The petitioner, therefore, went to Johannesburg in South Africa, which is an adjoining country and filed a pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-08-1999
Reported in : I(2000)ACC37; 1999ACJ956; AIR1999Guj280; [2001]104CompCas237(Guj); (1999)2GLR214
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. This appeal raises an important question as to whether death caused by a dog bite can be said to be death caused by an accident so as to make the Life Insurance Corporation liable to pay an additional sum equal to the sum assured under the accident benefit clause of the policy. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated January 12, 1998, of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patan, in Special Civil Suit No. 179 of 1994 to the extent that it disallows the additional payment under the accident benefit clause to the appellant - original plaintiff, who filed the suit to recover the dues under the two policies which were taken out to insure the life of his son Vikram for Rs. 50,000 each on February 1, 1989, and March 28, 1989. These policies contained an accident benefit clause, which entailed payment of an additional sum equal to the sum assured under the policy, if the death was caused as a result of an accident as contemplated by that cl...
Tag this Judgment!