Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '507794',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
			'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '507794',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '507794',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
		'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '507794',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/507794/pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '507794',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
			'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '507794',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '507794',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
		'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '507794',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/507794/pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- - the contention of shri banerjee is well founded. 3. it is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under section 304b, ipc for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. the framing of the charge is bad in law.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '507794',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
			'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '507794',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '507794',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
		'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '507794',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/507794/pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '507794',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
			'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '507794',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '507794',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
		'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '507794',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/507794/pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

orderm.p. singh, j.1. this revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under section 304b of the indian penal code against the applicants by xth addl. sessions judge, jabalpur in sessions trial no. 122/87.2. shri ranjan banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in section 304b of the indian penal code. section 304b, ipc is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the indian penal code by amendment act no. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. therefore, the framing of the charge under section 304b of the indian penal code cannot be sustained. the contention of shri.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '507794',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
			'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '507794',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '507794',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
		'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '507794',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/507794/pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

M.P. Singh, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '507794',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
			'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '507794',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '507794',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
		'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '507794',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/507794/pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '507794',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
			'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '507794',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '507794',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
		'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '507794',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/507794/pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '507794',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
			'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '507794',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '507794',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
		'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '507794',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/507794/pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '507794',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
			'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '507794',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '507794',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
		'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '507794',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/507794/pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '507794',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
			'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '507794',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '507794',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
		'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '507794',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/507794/pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '507794',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
			'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '507794',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '507794',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
		'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '507794',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/507794/pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '507794',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
			'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '507794',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '507794',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
		'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '507794',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/507794/pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '507794',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
			'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '507794',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 507794 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '507794',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 304B',
		'appealno' => 'Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded. 3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed. 5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Rajan Banerjee, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1994-09-22',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.</p><p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.</p><p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.</p><p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.</p><p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .</p><p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.</p><p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1995CriLJ2623',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '507794',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/507794/pradeep-kumar-dhawan-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>M.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 whereas Section 304B, IPC was brought on the Indian Penal Code by an amendment of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Therefore, the charge could not have been framed against the applicants under Section 304B, IPC for the alleged commission of the offence which took place on 6-4-86. The framing of the charge is bad in law. Reference may be made in the case of Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, : 1991CriLJ3135 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order framing of the charge under Section 304B, IPC is concerned cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision petition is allowed.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. It is however made clear that it will be open to the Court below to proceed against the applicants if any other offence under the law is made out against them.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Criminal
Court	Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On	Sep-22-1994
Case Number	Cri. Revision No. 512 of 1994
Judge	M.P. Singh, J.
Reported in	1995CriLJ2623
Acts	Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 304B
Appellant	Pradeep Kumar Dhawan
Respondent	State of Madhya Pradesh
Advocates:	Rajan Banerjee, Adv.
Disposition	Petition allowed
Cases Referred	Soni Devraj Bhai Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat

Pradeep Kumar Dhawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment