Ajudhya Vs. State of M.P.

- madhya pradesh uchcha nyayalaya (khand nyaypeeth ko appeal) adhiniyam (14 of 2006)section 2 & m.p. general clauses act, 1957, section 12: [a.k. patnaik, cj, s.s. jha & a.m. sapre, jj] appeal to division bench against judgment of single judge - application for restoration/revival of letters patent appeal under clause 10 - held, the legal effect of the 1981 adhiniyam was that with effect from 1st july 1981, all appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent were abolished except appeals which were pending before high court on date immediately preceding date of commencement of 1981 adhiniyam on 1st july 1981. it will be clear from sub-section 92) of section 1 of the 2005 adhiniyam that the 2005 adhiniyam was to come into force with retrospective effect from first day of july, 1981 i.e., with effect from the date from which the appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent were abolished by the 1981 adhiniyam. it will be further clear from section 2 of the 2005 adhiniyam that under the 2005 adhiniyam, appeal was provided for only from a judgment and order passed by a single judge in exercise of original jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india to a division bench comprising of two judges of the high court and no appeal was provided for from the judgment and order passed by a single judge of high court in exercise of any other jurisdiction of the high court. it will also be clear from section 4 of the 2005 adhiniyam that sub-section (1) of section 4 repealed the 1981 adhiniyam. therefore by the repeal of the 1981 adhiniyam by section 4(1) of 2005 adhiniyam, appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent against judgment and decree passed by the single judge in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 96 of the code of civil procedure would not be revived as 2005 adhiniyam does not provide for any such revival. a reading of section 12 of the m.p. general clauses act, 1957, would show that the legislature must expressly state that the repealed act.....s.k. kulshreshtha, j.1. it is alleged against the accused that his wife durga bai committed suicide as a result of the demand of dowry by the accused and other family members and harassment administered to her from time to time. though the case has been committed to sessions, evidence is yet to be recorded. going through the nature of allegation against the present applicant and considering the fact that co-accused hargovind and mst. khardibai have already been released by the trial court on bail, and there is no allegation that the applicant shall influence the prosecution on release on bail, i deem it a fit case to grant bail to the applicant.2. it is, accordingly, ordered that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of c.j.m. chhatarpur and executing a personal bond in the like sum for his appearance before the trial court or before any other court as may be directed, on all dates fixed in this behalf.c.c. as per rules.