Praphulla Bharti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Praphulla Bharti vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Aug 14, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1053005

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1053005
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Aug 14, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Praphulla Bharti

Advocate Shri. Mukesh Pandey

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....the single bench of this court in criminal revision no.1143/2009 vide order dated 22.9.2009 directed that the vehicle may be given on supurdginama to the applicant with certain conditions but, the applicant did not obtain the vehicle from the trial court. however, after conclusion of the trial, the trial court directed in the judgment itself that the vehicle be given to its registered owner. that order passed by the trial court is confirmed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 10.8.2011. after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary for a person to get the vehicle registered for its plying. the applicant was found in possession of the vehicle which was unregistered. under such circumstances, though the applicant was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under section 403 of i.p.c it is apparent, that the applicant is not the owner of the vehicle otherwise, he would have the registration papers of the vehicle. under such circumstances, where the applicant is not found to be an owner of the vehicle, vehicle cannot be given to the applicant. the learned magistrate as well as the appellate court did not commit any mistake in giving the vehicle to the registered owner. there is no illegality or perversity in the judgments passed by both the courts below so that an interference can be done by this court in the revision. on the basis of the aforesaid discussion the revision filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed. copy of the order be sent to both the courts below for information. (n.k.gupta) judge bina

Full Judgment

Cr.R.No.1621/2011 14.8.2013 Shri Mukesh Pandey, counsel for the applicant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The applicant has challenged the order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the learned FiRs.Aditionsl Sessions Judge, Seoni in Criminal Appeal No.158 of 2010 whereby the appeal was dismissed and the order about the vehicle passed in judgment dated 19.11.2010 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni in Criminal Case No.2338/2007 was confirmed.

The prosecution's case in short is that a trial for offence punishable under Section 403 of I.P.C was initiated against the applicant because an unregistered vehicle was found with him.

The single Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.1143/2009 vide order dated 22.9.2009 directed that the vehicle may be given on supurdginama to the applicant with certain conditions but, the applicant did not obtain the vehicle from the trial Court.

However, after conclusion of the trial, the trial Court directed in the judgment itself that the vehicle be given to its registered owner.

That order passed by the trial Court is confirmed by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.8.2011.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary for a person to get the vehicle registered for its plying.

The applicant was found in possession of the vehicle which was unregistered.

Under such circumstances, though the applicant was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under section 403 of I.P.C it is apparent, that the applicant is not the owner of the vehicle otherwise, he would have the registration papers of the vehicle.

Under such circumstances, where the applicant is not found to be an owner of the vehicle, vehicle cannot be given to the applicant.

The learned Magistrate as well as the appellate Court did not commit any mistake in giving the vehicle to the registered owner.

There is no illegality or perversity in the judgments passed by both the Courts below so that an interference can be done by this Court in the revision.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the revision filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed.

Copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below for information.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge bina

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Praphulla Bharti vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education