Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)141; 2003BomCR(Cri)1642; 2004(1)MhLj66
J.G. Chitre, J.1. These two applications have been disposed of by common judgment and order.2. The Petitioners are assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai in Criminal Revision Application No. 13 of 1995 by which she directed the Addl. Chief Metropolitan magistrate 37th court, Esplanade, Bombay, Bombay to hear further the complaint which was filed by Respondent No. 1 in his Court for setting aside the order which has been passed by him on 1.12.1994 by which he discharged the present petitioners.3. The complaint was filed by Respondent No. 1 alleging that the petitioners committed an offence under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC. Respondent No. 1 alleged that though the petitioners were bound to give him the commission in context with the articles exported for sale to customers residing in Germany, Berlin, Switzerland,he did not pay the said commission amount to the respondent No. 1 (original complainant). He ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1993)2GLR1351
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this revision, the petitioner, who is the original accused No. 2, has assailed the legality and validity of the order of conviction under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000 and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch, on 19-10-1981, in Criminal Case No. 1875 of 1980, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1981, by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch, on 18-lrl983, except reduction of sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months to one month, by invoking the provisions of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Code' for short, hereinafter).2. A resume of the material facts giving rise to the present appeal, may, shortly he stated, at this stage.3. One M/s. Parekh & Parekh Engineering Company' had taken contract of construction of 'E' type quarters and tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1933All525; 145Ind.Cas.749
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal of Ragho Ram, respondent, of charges of falsification of accounts under Section 477-A, Penal Code.2. Ragho Ram was the goods clerk in charge of the goods office at Jaunpur, E.I. Ry., station. He misappropriated various sums of money that were paid by consignees of goods on account of the freight of consignments. He was accordingly prosecuted under Section 409, Penal Code, for having committed criminal breach of trust with respect to three items and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted him and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to a fine of Rs. 500. The conviction and sentence were on appeal upheld by the learned Sessions judge. Ragho Ram filed an application in revision in this Court against the appellate order of the learned Sessions Judge and we have today dismissed that application.3. Ragho Ram was separately tried under Section 477-A, Penal Code, for having fraudulen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003BomCR(Cri)215; 2002CriLJ3902
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri Jha has divided his submissions on three divisions, (1) the allegations made by the complainant are of civil nature and, therefore, this is a matter pertaining to the domain of jurisdiction of Civil Court; (2) no ingredients of criminal offence has been indicated in the complaint made by the complainant; (3) the applicant has given a flat to complainant to reside and, therefore, there is no whisper of commission of criminal offence, leave aside the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 420 of IPC. He pointed out that these points have been dealt with by number of judgments of various High Courts and Supreme Court. He prayed for direction in the nature of anticipatory bail to the applicant.2. Shri Konde Deshmukh for the prosecution submitted that the act of giving a flat to the complainant which is situated in an unauthorised zone of the building itself shows the credibility of the appellant. Shri Konde Deshmukh submitted that a case of offence p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1895)ILR22Cal1017
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. I am of opinion that the accused was rightly convicted, and that there is no reason for the interference of the Court in this case.2. A comparison of the judgment in the case of Prosonna Kumar Patra v. Udoy Sant (ante, p. 669) with the whole of the definitions contained in Section 23 of the Penal Code, will shew that no effect has been given in that judgment to the last two paragraphs of the section.3. The judgment proceeds on the assumption that when the words in the definition are read into Section 378 of the Penal Code in place of the words 'dishonestly,' the section will read 'whoever, with the intention of gaining by unlawful means property to which he is not legally entitled, moves that property, is said to commit theft.' It is evident that in making such an assumption the last two paragraphs of Section 23 have been left out of consideration, and if they as well as the first paragraph are read into Section 378 it will read as follows: 'Whoever in order t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2001CriLJ1202; (2002)1GLR432b
H.H. Mehta, J. 1. This is a Criminal Revision Application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.), filed by the original-accused of Criminal case, Chief Case No, 35 of 1985 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana (who will be referred to hereinafter as the 'learned Magistrate' for the sake of convenience), challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of Judgment Ex. 9 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana (who will be referred to hereinafter as 'learned Appellate Judge' for the sake of convenience in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1990 on 20th April, 1990, whereby the learned Appellate Judge was pleased to confirm the Judgment Exh. 49 and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Magistrate on 26th December, 1989 in Chief Case No. 35 of 1985. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code (for short '...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC369; 1957CriLJ552; [1957]1SCR623
Jagannadhadas, J.1. The appellant, K. N. Mehra, and one M. Z. Phillips were both convicted under s. 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to simple imprisonment by the trial Magistrate for eighteen months and a fine of Rs. 750 with imprisonment in default of payment of fine for a further term of four months. The conviction and sentence against them have been confirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge and on revision by the High Court. The appeal before us is by special leave obtained on behalf of the appellant Mehra alone.2. Both Mehra and Phillips were cadets on training in the Indian Air Force Academy, Jodhpur. The prosecution is with reference to an incident which is rather extraordinary being for alleged theft of an aircraft, which, according to the evidence of the Commanding Officer, P.W. 1, has never so far occurred. The alleged theft was on May 14, 1952. Phillips was discharged from the Academy just the previous day, i.e., May 13, 1952, on grounds of misconduct. Mehra was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 20.2.2016 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Hon'ble Minister, thereby disqualifying the petitioners under the provisions of Sections 55B and 42 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1965). 2. The petitioners, when the impugned order was passed, were or had been the part of the Municipal Council, Katol, in such capacities as petitioner no. 1 being the President; petitioner no. 2 being the Ex-President and the Councillor and petitioner nos. 3 to 10 being the councillors and petitioner no. 10 being a co-opted councillor. They were disqualified by respondent no.2 for the reason that they were found to have indulged in misconduct and disgraceful conduct. The alleged controversial conduct of the petitioners related to the allotment of some minor works to one contractor, Shri Bambal. 3. Some councillors...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2005(1)JKJ245
S.K. Gupta, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 21-05-1997 propounded by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, whereby accused, Janak Raj, only has been convicted and sentenced to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in proof of offence under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (BK) and in case of non-payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year; further sentenced Janak Raj to suffer ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for commission of offence under Section 409 RPC and in case of non-payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years; and also for hatching a conspiracy with deceased Bishan Dass, Driver of the truck, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of default of the payment of fine, to further suffer one year's rigorous imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 4584 of 2015 --- Sunil Kumar --- --- ---- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand 4. Dr. Nitin Madan Kulkarni, Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand 5. The Joint Secretary to the Government, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand 6. The Under Secretary to the Government, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand --- Respondents --- CORAM: The Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Sinha and Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocates For the Resp-State: Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, GP-VI --- 06/ 24.11.2015 Heard counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner who is an incumbent of the Jharkhand Agriculture Service Cadre, wa...
Tag this Judgment!