Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-28-1956
Reported in : 1956CriLJ904
orderpadmanabhiah, j.1. this is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-accused against the judgment of the learned sessions judge, mercara, in criminal appeal no. 12/1953. confirming that of the learned munsiff and) first class magistrate, mercara, in c. c. no. 295/1954, convicting him of an offence under section 243, i.p.c. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous- imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of rs. 500/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.2. the facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows:3. the accused was charge-sheeted for an offence under section 243,1.p.c. in the court of the learned munsiff and first class magistrate, mercara, and the case for the prosecution was that on 23-11-53 the accused was found in fraudulent possession of four counterfeit india government rupee coins of 1947 pattern having known at the time he became possessed of them that they were counterfeit and that he thereby committed an offence punishable under section 243, i.p.c.the accused pleaded not guilty to a charge framed under the above section but the learned magistrate ultimately convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. as against that judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned sessions judge, mercara, who confirmed the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed on him by the trial court. as against that decision, this revision petition is filed'.4. the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-17-1956
Reported in : AIR1957Kant62; AIR1957Mys62; ILR1956KAR307
1. the main point urged is that the suit is barred by limitation since the article applicable to a suit like the one on hand is article 120 of schedule i to the limitation act and not article 129. even assuming that it is article 120, the question that arises for consideration is from when the time has to be reckoned.2. it is urged for the appellant that the date of the second marriage when, according to the provisions of the hindu women's rights act the first wife gets the right to live away from her husband, is the starting point. i do not think that this contention is correct.the first wife no doubt gets the right to live away from her husband if he marries a second wife. but, it does not make it obligatory for her to live separately, nor does it even provide that she has straightaway to make up her mind whether she will live separately or not. it is quite open to her to live with her husband. there is no reason to apply any principle to the case of a wife who claims a right of maintenance under the mysore hindu women's bights act other than that under the general hindu law under which article 129 is applicable.the cause of action can be said to arise when there is a demand for separate maintenance and refusal by the husband. it is hardly necessary to say that the existence of a right does not always mean that the cause of action also accrues with such right coming into existence, for example, in the case of a member of a joint hindu family he has a right to separate .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-31-1956
Reported in : AIR1957Kant16; AIR1957Mys16
padmanabhiah, j.1. this is an application filed by the petitioners under article 226 of the constitution praying for the issue of writs of prohibition, mandamus and quo warranto against the respondents in connection with the election held to the municipal council at gubbi on 28-2-1956.2. the facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows:the petitioners and respondents 3 to 17 are residents of gubbi town in tumkur district. the 1st respondent is the returning officer and the amildar, of gubbi, and the 2nd the commissioner for local self-government respondents 3 to 17 have been elected to the municipal council at gubbi in the election held on 28-2-1956. petitioners are stated to be some of the voters of gubbi town. their contention is that the election is illegal and void on various grounds, that the respondents 3 to 17 have no right to sit as councillors, that they should be prevented from doing so and that the writs as prayed for are to be issued against them.3. the respondents oppose the application. the point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief prayed for in the petition. it appears to us that there are not sufficient grounds to allow the petition. the election is sought to be challenged as invalid and void on the following grounds:1. that two units or areas 15(a) and 15(b) not contiguous to each other and having different boundaries have been formed into one division as division no. 15 contrary to the .....Tag this Judgment!