Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the advocate for the appellant praying to set aside the order of conviction and sentence in S.C.No.232/2008 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga and acquit the appellant.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The accused is in appeal in the following circumstances:- The appellant was accused of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). The complainant Sonabai was a resident of Hanumantwadi in Basavakalyan Taluk, Bidar District. She had two daughters, Laxmibai and Sangeeta. She had lost her husband about 12 years prior to the complaint. She had performed the marriage of her elder daughter Laxmi six years prior to the complaint. Lakshmi was married to the present appellant. It is claimed that the accused had looked after Lakshmi ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of the Crl.P.C. praying to call for records of the court below and set aside the judgment and order dated 6.10.2007 passed by the JMFC-II Court, Bijapur in C.C.No.222/2005 and convict the respondent.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant was the complainant before the Trial Court, who had alleged an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act' for brevity). The complaint having been contested, was dismissed. Hence the present appeal is filed. 3. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant and the respondent were good friends. Since the respondent was in need of money, he had raised a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the appellant, which was lent under two installments dated 25.06.2003 and 26.10.2003. The same was to be repaid on or before 1.10.2004. The same not having been paid on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
(Prayer: Gulbarga-585 101. ... Respondent. (By Shri S.S. Aspalli, Government Pleader) This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 23.10.2008 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, in Special Case NO.131/2004, convicting the appellants / accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC and each accused are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and further, each accused are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and further, each accused are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 read with Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. praying to acquit the appellant on all charges levelled and framed against him in S.C.No.79/2007, by setting aside the judgment passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge and P.O., Fast Track Court-III, Raichur, in S.C.No.79/2007 dated 29.09.2007, impugned herein, and to release the appellant from judicial custody.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The appellant was the accused before the Trial Court in the following background: Lakshmi, the daughter of Pomanna and Shankaramma, had alleged that she along with her parents, were residents of Alkot Tanda, within the limits of Jalahalli Police Station, in Devadurga Taluk. The appellant was the resident of A.G. Colony and was related to Lakshmi. A.G Colony was about 2 kms from Alkot Tanda. It is claimed that during July 2006, Lakshmi was aged about 19 and during that time, her parents had gone in search ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash the entire proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.55/2010 on the file of the Family Judge at Raichur.) The petitioner is said to be the husband of respondent no.1 and respondents 2 and 3 are their children. The petitioner and respondent no.1 are separated. The children are living with respondent no.1. The respondents had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.PC', for brevity), seeking maintenance in a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month for herself and a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month for the children, that is respondents 2 and 3, for their maintenance from the date of the petition. The said petition was filed in the year 2010. The petitioner on receiving notice of the same, has appeared therein and has filed his objections. The marriage is admitted and there is no dispute that the children are their own. However, it was alleged by r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
(Prayer: This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1985, against the judgment dated 20.10.2010 passed in Crl.Misc.No.71/2009 on the file of the District Judge, Family Court at Gulbarga, wherein partly allowing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. and the petitioner No.1 is entitled to said enhance maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- from respondent from the date of filing the present petition and the petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs.500/- each from the date of filing the present petition till they attain the age of majority.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent has been served and remains unrepresented. There is a delay of 49 days in filing the present petition. For the reasons stated, the delay is condoned. I.A.3/2012 is taken on record and allowed. 2. The petitioners are the wife and children of the respondent. Apparently, petitioner No.1 is estranged from her husband and is li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State Public Prosecutor for the state praying to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.06.2008 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Raichur, in S.C.No.78/2007, acquitting the accused / respondents for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC.) 1. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The State is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the accused in the following background: The complainant one Muddu Ramulu, a resident of Kolpur village, Manganoor Mandal, Makthal Taluk of Andhra Pradesh, had alleged that the respondents herein are brothers and that the first respondent had married his daughter Tarangini about four years prior to the incident. It transpires that when Tarangini was studying in S.S.L.C., Respondent No.1 had developed a friendship with her and they had on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment dated 8.1.2007 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bidar in Spl.CC (NDPS) No.53/05 and etc.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. 2. The appellants were the accused before the trial court, who have suffered a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, for committing an offence punishable under Section 20(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act', for brevity). 3. The background to the said sentence being imposed is as follows:- It transpires that the Manna-e-Khelli Police had received credible information on 20th October 2005 at 11 a.m., of ganja being transported from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra and the concerned had gone near the Manna-e-Khelli bus-stand, where they found the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J. 1. This petition is filed for transferring of M.C.No. 20/2012 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Humnabad to Family Court at Gulbarga. 2. Petitioner herein is the wife of respondent. Respondent herein has filed petition for divorce before the Senior Civil Court at Humnabad. Petitioner herein alleges that she being the lady finds it difficult to approach Humnabad Court every now and then, particularly, in view of the fact that she is suffering from lack of finance. According to the petitioner herein, respondent is a practicing Advocate at Gulbarga and is a businessman also; and that earlier, similar petition was filed by the respondent herein in M.C.No.44/2003 at Gulbarga and in the said petition, interim maintenance of Rs.1,200/- per month was awarded. However, the respondent herein did not pay the said maintenance, consequent upon which, the petition came to be closed by the Family Court at Gulbarga. According to the petitioner herein, resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
1. This is the defendants second appeal against the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts below. 2. The respondent herein filed suit for recovery of money based on accounts. Suit tame to be decreed by the trial Court and the judgment of the trial Court is confirmed by the first appellate Court. 3. Sri D.P. Ambekr, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the suit itself was not maintainable in view of Section 84 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short hereinafter referred to as APM Act). He further submits that imposition of future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. is bad in the eye of law. Following questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal: 1. Whether the suit was not maintainable? 2. Whether the Courts below are justified in imposing interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit? 4. The point of lack of jurisdiction is not raised by the defendant before the t...
Tag this Judgment!