(1) Titanic Restaurant through Dharmendrabhai Patel v. dy. Police Commissioner & Ors.

Facts Of the Case: In this Case the Petitioner are running restaurants on the strength of license/ permission granted by the police commissioner of the city of Ahmedabad on their giving an undertaking to abide by all the conditions which may be imposed upon by the Police Commissioner under the Act of 1951. On the notification dated 2nd December, 2005 was issued by Ahmedabad Police Commissioner imposing 2 Conditions for Regulating Hookah Bar: (1) a separate Cabin would be provided over and above the other general area for providing food in the restaurant and the hookah will not be provided in the common area of the Restaurant and (2) that Hookah would not be provided to the person below the age of 18 years. After that on 14th May, 2009 there was 8conditions were added. After that it imposed that the any Eating House/ Restaurant would not be kept hookah so the Petitioner were banned to provide Hookah in the Restaurant. After that the Police Commissioner on dated 14th July, 2011 exercise in all the Restaurants and Hookah Bars for the obedience of Hookah and found that Hookah Containing 0.005% tobacco and so that the banned was given on consuming Hookah so all the 20 Hookah bar were closed. The petitioner have been preferred mainly challenging the Jurisdiction of the police Commissioner of the Ahmedabad in issuing the notification

under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and under Section 33(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 imposing a complete ban and prohibiting providing Hookah at Eating house/ Restaurant. Issues Of the Case: Whether the Hookah bar which banned to Running Hookah were subject to Condition which were lies by Commissioner and Gist of Arguments: In the Arguments the Prosecution Lawyer made such arguments that such

Hookah was not injurious to Health for Consuming and other States also running such Hookahs for which he came in Court with Hookah and gave Court Idea of its procedure.
In case the Respondent Lawyer Mr. P.K. Jani argues that the Hookah

which were consuming by Youngsters were containing Tobacco and which is injurious to health. Order If Any: In case the Honble Justice A. L. Dave and J. B. Pardiwala gave the

Judgement on the side of the Respondents and banned to running Hookahs in any Hookah bar and also comment to Prosecution Lawyer Yatin Oza that whether you permit your child for going to Hookah bar and the lawyer give the answer that he would not give permission but if she would like to go then I cannot force on her.

1) State of Gujarat v. Bhikhalal Kalyanji Jethva

Case No.:- 1925/10

Brief of the Complainant: In this Case the deceased Amit Jethva was the Activist of RTI and working for it. For which he had crashes on the one Dinubhai Bogabhai Solanki who was the Member of Parliament from Junagadh constituency. Mr. Dinubhai Solanki was harassed and annoyed by RTI and other activism of Mr. Amit Jethva that exposed his empire of illegal activities including illegal mining on a massive scale in and around Gir Forest. So, Amit Jethva and other family members were repeatedly threatened with dire consequences and threat to life. The statement also reveal the complaints made by Mr. Amit Jethva against Mr. Solanki in Past. So, one day Mr. Amit Jethva was killed by shot him opposite High Court. And so thinking the Mr. Solanki was involved in the case and so he was arrested.

Brief about the Charges: The accused Mr. Solanki and other one Mr. Pratap had submitted the report under S.173 of Cr.P.C. that evidence which were found was not sufficient to arrest him. Section 173. Report of Police Officer on Completion of investigation

(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. (2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating(a) The names of the parties; (b) The nature of the information; (c) The names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) Whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) Whether the accused has been arrested; (f) Whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) Whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170. (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.

(3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation. (4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit. (5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report(a) All documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; (b) The statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witness. (6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the sub-matter of the proceeding or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests

of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request. (7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5). (8) Notwithstanding in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and the provisions of' sub-section (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)

Analysis of statement of the witness of any: In this case mainly 136 witnesses were found. In which the witness was at time of murder at Bar Council Of Gujarat Complex he was at the Styam pan Parlor and after hearing the shot of firing ran to the place and follow the two person who were ran away after shot Mr. Jethva. Description of other documentary evidence: In this case the First Information Report is the evidence. And the Revolver was found lying besides the deceased Mr. Amit Jethva and fingerprints were found. Gist of Arguments if any:-

 After hat Sub Inspector V.M. Rabari was went to Junagadh for more information and found that One Amarsingh Vadher who gave amount of 9Lakhs to accused Bhurasingh Vadher for the purpose of the commission of the Act. Secondly, Mr. Solanki was come to contack with Mr. Vadher on 19th and 20th July, 2010.

Judgment: In this the matter the judgment not yet given.

2) Sanjiv Bhatt IPS, Junagadh v. State of Gujarat and Ors. Case No.:- 15941/10 Brief of the Complainant: The applicant passed Indian Police Service Examination and after successfully completing training the Applicant Joint as Gujarat Cadre as IPS Officer. Applicant was posted as District Superintendent of Police (DSP), Porabandar with effect from 1997 and applicant remained as such for short period. A very serious complaint was lodged with kamalabaug Police Stationof Porbandar by Shri B.S. Chauhan, PSI and reader to the DSP, Porabandar on 8 th March, 1994 against 22accused persons for waging war with arms and doing Criminal Conspiracy. It is alleged that the said accused persons with a common intention attempted to wage war against the Government and, thereby committed alleged offences.

 Police Inspector of Kamlanehrubaug who was investigating officer of case interrogated Respondent No. 2 on 6th July, 1997. And during course of investigation he confessed of being an illegal possession of the arms and received the said arms. The Respondent of the case made statement that the IPS torture him and confess the statement in pressure and also torture him much and so he got injured and no person can be injured much in the custody.

Brief about the Charges: The 22 accused persons were charged under S. 121, 122, 123, 120-B of IPC Section 121:- Waging/attempting/abetting wage war against Government of India
Whoever wages war against the [Government of India], or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life] [and shall also be liable to fine]. Section 122:- Collecting Arms, etc. with information of waging war against GOI Whoever collects men, arms or ammunition or otherwise prepares to wage war with the intention of either waging or being prepared to wage war against the [Government of India], shall be punished with [imprisonment for life] or imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, [and shall also be liable to fine]. Section 123:- Concealing with intent to facilitate design to wage war Whoever by any act, or by any illegal omission, conceals the existence of a design to wage war against the [Government of India], intending by such concealment to facilitate, or knowing it to be likely that such concealment will facilitate, the waging of such war, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 120B:- Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

Description of other documentary evidence: In this case the First Information Report is the evidence. In this case CBI investigate the case and no proof found against the accused and found that the Respondent No. 2 was habitual offender

Judgment: The commission appointed by the State government examined the allegations as well as evidence in support of those allegations of torture. However, the commission has specifically come to the conclusion that the no case of torture is made out.

3) Niket Thakore v. State of Gujarat Brief of the Complainant:-

Case No.:- 28/10

In this case the accused of the case Niket thakore murder person Kuldeep singh. The incident took place in Sandipani Hostel on 12th July, 2008. On the said date the both Niket and Kuldeep have dispute on the ground of Kuldeep often speak abusive words for which teacher also scolded him.

 On the said date the attendance of student was taken in room (everyday taken on ground) then all students get back to their respective rooms. After sometimes Kuldeep went to the Niket Thakores room with Knife (hided) and after some time Niket came out from the room and go to the wardens room direction with Knife which using for cutting Mutton is of 7inches long. After sometime Kuldeep came out from Nikets room and overtake Niket and stop him and at that time they have started fighting in between and at the time Niket stuck knife to Kuldeeps shoulder and on the back. So, the Kuldeep injured and sent back to the hospital where he was dead. So, Niket Thakore was arrested.

Brief about the Charges: The accused Mr. Niket Thakore was charged for Section 320, 323, 299, 302 of IPC. Section 320:- Grievous Hurt
The following kinds of hurt only are designated as grievous: First. Emasculation. Secondly.Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. Thirdly. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, Fourthly.Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. Sixthly. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly.Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

Eighthly.Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

Section 323:- Punishment for voluntarily causing Hurt Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. PunishmentImprisonment for 1 year, or fine of 1,000 rupees, or bothNon-cognizable BailableTriable by any MagistrateCompounded by the person to whom the hurt is caused.

Section 299:- Culpable Homicide Section 302:- Punishment of Murder Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine. PunishmentDeath, or imprisonment for life, and fineCognizableNon-bailable Triable by Court of SessionNon-compoundable.

Analysis of statement of the witness of any: All the witness of the case including warden and principal gave the statement in favor of Kuldeep singh and all have seen the act.

Gist of Arguments if any: The prosecution lawyer of the case took the plea of sudden Grave and provocation and also took plea that Niket go to the warden office with knife to say warden that Kuldeep came in his room with knife.

 While the Defense lawyer Mr. P.K. Jani plea that if he want to complain warden the no need of any knife such as mutton cutter.

Judgment: In the case court gave the judgment that the judgment of trail Court is appropriate and also order prosecution that the cost 2.80lakh is to be given to deceaseds family. (2) Dhrangadhra Prakruti Mandal Through its vice President Devjibhai

Dhamecha V. State of Gujarat Facts Of the Case:-

Case No.:- 104/11 (PIL)

In this case Narendra Modi the Chief Minister of Gujarat on 25 th August appointed Justice R.A. Mehta as the State Lokayukta, a post which was lying vacant since November 2003. So, The State Government had challenged the appointment in High Court next day, contending that the Governors Decision was unconstitutional and unilateral. Issues Of the Case: Is the appointment of Justice R.A. Mehta by the warrant dated 25 th August, 2011 issued under the hand of the governor, constitutionally valid?

Order If Any:-

 In this case both the lawyers argue well and now judges were came on the confusion of Judgment.
On October 11, Justice Akil Kureshi heading a division bench had upheld the decision of the Governor in appointment of Justice Mehta as Lokayukta, while Justice Sonia Gokani had ordered quashing of warrant of appointment issued by the Governor terming it to be "unconstitutional" Justice Sahai had referred the matter back to the division bench asking it to frame the points of disagreement, based on which he would hear the case.

4) Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat Brief of the Complainant:-

Case No.:- 110/11

In this case the NIL letters received by Gafurbhai Patel, surat. The Applicant prayed that Mr. Alsika, Police Inspector, SOG(Baroda) and his staff taken away his brother to Vadodara on 19th May, 2011 and after two days of inquiry on 23rd May, 2011, he was asked to take custody of his brother. However, upon the reaching the office of S.O.G. Police Station, he was asked to admit the offence of facilitating the escape of a prisoner of Baroda jail, from Civil Hospital and upon refusal to do so, he was abused and severely beaten up by the Police authority. The applicant was stripped naked and his hand were tied up and was tortured by many police men by beating him by batons for five hours while asking him to

admit said offence. Next Day, he was tied up by fan and done inhumane treatment. The applicant has further stated that the next day also he was tortured by electrocuting him in his private parts due to which he cannot urinate. After returning Vadodara on 31st may, 2011he was hospitalized in private Hospital for three days as bleeding from private parts. On 3rd June, 2011 before producing him in court he was threatened of dire consequences by way of hitting her pregnant wife and killed his unborn child. And his brother also set off free on the said date without and registration of offence. His brother has filled affidavit before the Director General of Police Gandhinagar and Vadodara.

Brief about the Charges: The accused all the Police Officers and staff were arrested and charged for injured in custody without registering case. Description of other documentary evidence: In this case the Doctors Report Medical report of First Doctor and Air tickets get by Air authority.

Judgment: The judgment was no given yet.