Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: By way of this petition, the petitioner-detenue has challenged the order of detention dated 15th October 2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub-section(1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'the PASA Act') and has also prayed for an order to set him free from detention. I take notice of the fact that the petitioner has been detained as a 'bootlegger'. I also take notice of the fact that in the grounds of detention order dated 15 th October 2014, the detaining authority has relied upon two cases registered with the Mandvi Police Station vide III-CR No.411 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65AE, 116(2) and 81 of the Prohibition Act, and vide III-CR No.111 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65AE, 116(2) and 81 of the Prohibition Act Section 2(b) of the PASA Act defines the term 'bootlegger', which reads as under:- "S.2(b)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: By way of this petition, the petitioner-detenue has challenged the order of detention passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara city, dated 22 nd October 2014, in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'the PASA Act') and has also prayed for an order to set him free from detention. The order of detention along with the grounds supplied to the detenue are suggestive of the fact that the petitioner has been detained labelling him as a "dangerous person" as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the PASA Act. The grounds of detention are also suggestive of the fact that the detaining authority has taken into consideration three cases registered with the Panigate Police Station, Vadodara, vide II-CR No.120 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, vide I-CR No.269 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 326 r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: By way of this petition, the petitioner-detenue has challenged the order of detention dated 15th October 2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub-section(1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'the PASA Act') and has also prayed for an order to set him free from detention. I take notice of the fact that the petitioner has been detained as a 'bootlegger'. I also take notice of the fact that in the grounds of detention order dated 15 th October 2014, the detaining authority has relied upon two cases registered with the Mandvi Police Station vide III-CR No.411 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65AE, 116(2) and 81 of the Prohibition Act, and vide III-CR No.111 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65AE, 116(2) and 81 of the Prohibition Act Section 2(b) of the PASA Act defines the term 'bootlegger', which reads as under:- "S.2(b)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: 1. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 4.3.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Special Case No. 9 of 1996, whereby, the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused - the respondent herein, of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 8(1) and 13(1) of the Rice Polished Regulation Act. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on receiving information about the illegal work of rice polishing was being done by the accused person in his house, and therefore, on 20.2.1996, Officers of Civil Supplies Department have visited the premises and found that the accused is doing the rice polishing work without any pass or permit in his premises. Therefore, Superintendent of Civil Supplies Department has submitted his report to the District Magistrate. On 25.7.1996, the District Magistrate has ordered to lodge complaint be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
CAV Judgment: 1. Since the issues raised in the above captioned matters are interrelated those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted of the offence under Sections 213, 214, 217 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 12, 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the strength of a First Information Report registered with the DCB Police Station, Surat vide I-CR No.37/2013. 3. Case of the prosecution:- 3.1 A person, by name Asaram Bapu claims to be a Saint. His son, namely, Narayansai also claims to be a Saint. The father and son have many Ashrams all over the State and one of those is situated at Ahmedabad. On 11th December, 2013 Shri J. K. Zala, Asst. Commissioner of Police, 'D' Dvn., Surat City lodged a First Information Report referred to above making a reference in the same of one other offence registered on 6/10/2013 at the Jahangirpura Police Station vide C.R. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: 1. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 4.3.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Special Case No. 9 of 1996, whereby, the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused - the respondent herein, of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 8(1) and 13(1) of the Rice Polished Regulation Act. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on receiving information about the illegal work of rice polishing was being done by the accused person in his house, and therefore, on 20.2.1996, Officers of Civil Supplies Department have visited the premises and found that the accused is doing the rice polishing work without any pass or permit in his premises. Therefore, Superintendent of Civil Supplies Department has submitted his report to the District Magistrate. On 25.7.1996, the District Magistrate has ordered to lodge complaint be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
CAV Judgment: 1. Since the issues raised in the above captioned matters are interrelated those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted of the offence under Sections 213, 214, 217 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 12, 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the strength of a First Information Report registered with the DCB Police Station, Surat vide I-CR No.37/2013. 3. Case of the prosecution:- 3.1 A person, by name Asaram Bapu claims to be a Saint. His son, namely, Narayansai also claims to be a Saint. The father and son have many Ashrams all over the State and one of those is situated at Ahmedabad. On 11th December, 2013 Shri J. K. Zala, Asst. Commissioner of Police, 'D' Dvn., Surat City lodged a First Information Report referred to above making a reference in the same of one other offence registered on 6/10/2013 at the Jahangirpura Police Station vide C.R. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. We have heard Mr. Zubin F. Bharda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, Mr. N.D. Gohil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no1, Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2,3,5 and 6 and Mr. Vandan Baxi, learned AGP, appearing on behalf of respondent no.4. 2. This writ-petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner who claims to be a freelance journalist and also is running a hotel on National Highway No. 59 near village Kathlal, praying for the following reliefs:- [A] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and/or direction to appoint any person having technical know-how of construction of National Highway along with a retired Judge of the High Court or a Judge of subordinate Court not below the rank of retired District Judge to inquire into the entire affairs in awarding contract of construction of National Highway Toll Road of National Highway No. 59 betw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Jayant Patel, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Mehta, learned Standing Counsel, waives notice of Rule. The matter is finally heard with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides. 2. The only question which may arise for consideration in the present matter is "Whether the bar of four years provided by first proviso of section 147 of the Income Tax Act can be made applicable to the facts of the present case or not? 3. The relevant facts are that as per the petitioner, for the assessment year 2008-2009, the scrutiny was made under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the petitioner submitted detailed letter on various points connected with the return of income tax filed under section 139 of the Act. On 18.11.2010, during the course of regular assessment, in reply to the notice under section 142(1), the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner, vide letter, had submitted various documents including the audit report and the details about the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Jayant Patel, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Nitin Mehta, learned counsel appears for respondents no.1 to 3 and waives notice. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard. 2. The only question arise for consideration in the present matter is "Whether the order below the stay application could be passed by respondent no.2 without recording any reasons or not?" 3. The relevant facts show that after the AO passed the order of assessment and made the demand of tax of Rs.2,07,55,490/- for the assessment year 2011-2012, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) contending inter alia that it was only a typographical error for claiming the benefit under section 10A, though wrongly typed as 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the "Act"). It is also not in dispute that the petitioner preferred stay application. However, below stay application, vide order dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure D), the said stay application has ...
Tag this Judgment!