SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1963 Supreme(Guj) 26

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :P.N.BHAGWATI, K.T.DESAI, M.R.MODY
BHALCHANDRA RAMCHANDRA VAIDYA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 292 of 1960
Decided On : 02/18/1963

Advocates Appeared: I.M.NANAVATI, J.M.THAKAR

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Articles 226, 227, 311 (2) – Code of Civil Procedure – Section 80 – Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act – section 5 – Civil Services Rules – Rule 151 – Government of India Act 1935 – Section 240 – Bombay Reorganisation Act 1960 – Section 64 – States Reorganisation Act 1956 – Section 81, 82, 88 – Order of Dismissal – Nullity – Jurisdiction – Supervisory Power – Writs – Mandamus – Prohibition – Certiorari – Petitioner before us has filed this Special Civil Application against State of Gujarat praying for issue of a writ of certiorari or other orders and directions under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India calling for record and proceedings of case against petitioner and quashing and setting aside an order of dismissal passed against petitioner and for issue of a writ of mandamus or other writs orders and directions under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India ordering State of Gujarat to cancel said order of dismissal or to forbear from taking any steps or action under said order and from doing any act prejudical to rights and interests of petitioner – Petitioner has further asked for a declaration that petitioner is and be continued in service of Police Department and be given his proper seniority and other reliefs – Held, matter has been referred to a full Bench and that matter prior thereto had been heard for some time before a Division Bench and having regard to importance of matter we consider that normal rule about advocates fees would be totally inadequate to compensate advocates for work and labour that they had to put in in this special civil application – Court hold that it would be proper to allow a sum of seven hundred and fifty rupees by way of advocates fees in this case – Taking however all circumstances into account including fact that plea on which this petition fails has been taken at a subsequent stage of proceeding fair order to make as regard costs would be that each party should dear its own costs – Ordered Accordingly

K. T. DESAI, J.

( 1 ) BHALCHANDRA Ramchandra Vaidya the petitioner before us has filed this Special Civil Application against the State of Gujarat praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other orders and direc- tions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling for the record and proceedings of the case against the petitioner and quashing and setting aside an order of dismissal passed against the petitioner and for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other writs orders and direc- tions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ordering the State of Gujarat to cancel the said order of dismissal or to forbear from taking any steps or action under the said order and from doing any act prejudical to the rights and interests of the petitioner. The petitioner has further asked for a declaration that the petitioner is and be continued in service of the Police Department of the State of Gujarat and be given his proper seniority and other reliefs.

( 2 ) IN the year 1949 the petitioner commenced service in the Police Department of the State of Saurashtra as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the year 1953 the petitioner was working as a Deputy Super- intendent of Police at Dhrangadhra. In the month of May 1953 the petitioners attention was drawn to a report in a local newspaper that one Jashwantrai whose wife Nirmala was then living had contracted a second bigamous marriage with one Pushpa. The petitioner thereupon suo motu ordered an enquiry to be held in the matter. The enquiry was held by Police Sub Inspector A. T. Vachharajani of the Dhrangadhra Police Station who submitted his report stating that no such marriage between Jashwantari and Pushpa was proved to have been contracted. On 3rd June 1953 K. C. Trivedi the brother of Bai Nirmala lodged a complaint with the Dhrangadhra City Police Station about the alleged bigamous marriage of Jashwantrai with Pushpa. This complaint was investigated by Vachharajani who submitted his report to the Police Inspector Dhrangadhra Sub-Division who in his turn submitted the papers to the petitioner. The petitioner concurred with the conclusion of the Police Sub Inspector that no offence of bigamy was proved to have been committed and that the First Class Magistrate Dhrangadhra should be moved to grant C summary i. e. that no offence had been committed and he made a recommendation to that effect. On 17th July 1953 Bai Pushpa and her mother Bhagirathi filed affidavits before the First Class Magistrate Dhrangadhra stating that a marriage had taken place between Jashwantrai and Pushpa and charging Jashwantrai with having committed the offence of bigamy. Thereupon on 2nd August 1953 the Magistrate ordered an enquiry under sec. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The enquiry was made by the petitioner. He examined about 13 witnesses and ultimately came to the conclusion that no reliable evidence was forthcoming which would afford a reasonable chance of the case ending in a conviction. He made a report to that effect to the Magistrate and sent to him the entire record of the proceedings. The Magistrate did not accept the recommendation of the petitioner to grant C summary and called for a charge-sheet and proceeded with the case and ultima- tely convicted Jashwantrai and sentenced him to one years rigourous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300. 00 for having committed the offence of bigamy. An appeal was preferred from the said order of conviction and sentence to the Sessions Court at Jhalawad. In the course of the hearing of the appeal Jashwantrais advocate admitted the fact of Jashwantrais marriage with Pushpa and the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but altered the sentence to one of three months rigourous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100. 00. The Government of Saurashtra took the view that the petitioner was superficial and negligent in his enquiry and ordered a departmental enquiry to he held against the petitioner. That was in the year 1955 The enquiry































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top