Madhya Pradesh Court October 1950 Judgments
Wahid Ali Vs. the State of Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1950
Reported in: 1952CriLJ683
Sathaye, J.C.1. This is an application under Article 236 of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus to release the applicant from his detention under the Privative Detention Act of 1950.2. By an order dated 7.3.1950, the Chief Commissioner, Bhopal directed that the applicant Wahid Ali alias Buddha son of Ahmedali, resident of Bhopal be detained for one year from the date of the order. To applicant, however, could not be arrested immediately after this order and wag arrested only on 5.6.1950 and the Chief Commissioner, on 13.6.1950 forwarded to him the grounds of the order of detention.3. The applicant filed this petition on 21.8.1950, alleging that the grounds for his detention were mala fide, vague and indefinite; and that the petitioner was a peaceful, respectable citizen and the encroachment on his fundamental rights of personal liberty given under the Constitution of India, by the Chief Commissioner of Bhopal was wholly an warranted and against law.4. On 29.9.1950 the...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ507
Shinde, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment & order of the Ses. J. Guna. The facts of this case are as follows. Randhirsingh, his four sons Sardaraingh, Lalsaheb, Kaptan singh, Badalsingh & Mulla & Diwansingh, who is absconding, were on inimical terms with the Congress Committee in the village of Barodia. On 16-6-1948, ToranBingh deceased, Aman, Shamlal & Bhawarlal went to Pachhar to institute proceedings for taking security to keep the peace from the accused. On the morning of 17-6-1948 Aman, Shamlal, Bhawarlal, Diwansingh & Raiselal were standing on the Chabutra where Congress flag was flying. Suddenly Toransingh came to the spot in a frightened condition & told them that the accused were pursuing him to beat him. In the meantime, Diwansingh, Sardarsingh, Lalsaheb, Badalsingh & Kaptansingh and Mulla came to the spot & Diwansingh fired his gun & shot Toransingh dead. After this at Lalsaheb's instance Sardarsingh took aim at Shamlal & fired hie gun but missed him. Aman, Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Champalal Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-1950
Reported in: 1953CriLJ12
Dixit, J.1. This reference arises out of a revision petition against an order dated 29.6.1950 of the Additional District Magistrate, Jhabua, cancelling the bail of the applicant Champalal and ordering his rearrest. The applicant Champalal was arrested on 9.10.49 in connection with offences under Sections 395, 307, 398, 126, 120(b), 148 and 332 read with Section 109 I.P.C. A challan against him for these offences was filed on 31.12.49 in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Jhabua. The accused then applied to the Magistrate as also to the Sessions Judge, Jhabua, for being released on bail, but his applications were rejected. Ultimately the applicant was ordered to be released on bail by my learned brother Mehta J. The order dated 23.5.1949 directing the release of the accused on bail also mentioned that:in case the accused applicant tries to tamper with the prosecution evidence for which there must be definite proof, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bond...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Ambaram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: 1953CriLJ98
Kaul, C.J.1. This case has been referred to a Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court. A reference was made by the Additional District Magistrate Dhar, recommending that an order passed by the District Sub-Judge (First Class Magistrate) Sardarpur, dated 11th August 1949 be set aside. It came up before a learned Single Judge of this Court. He was of opinion that the question raised by the reference was one on which there was considerable difference of opinion among various High Courts in India, and accordingly has referred the matter to a Bench. The point of law which came up for consideration before the learned Judge arose thus:Six persons were challaned by the Amzera Police to take their trial for various offences under sections 135, 314 and 444 of the Gwalior Penal Code (corresponding to Sections 148, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code). The case came up before the District Sub-Judge, Sardarpur, a first class magistrate. After recording some evidence, he framed the charges. A...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Prasad Srivastava and anr. Vs. the State of Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: 1952CriLJ660
ORDERTribeni Saran, Addl. J.C.1. This order disposes of two petitions made by Govind Prasad Shrivastava and Balkrishan Gupta for the issue of the writs of Habeas Corpus under Article 226, Constitution of India. The applicants were arrested and detained by means of warrants issued by the Chief Commissioner, Bhopal, under the Preventive Detention Act 1950.2. The preliminary objection raised by the Government advocate relates to the jurisdiction of this Court in respect of the applications. His argument is that Article 226 is only meant to lay down the powers which the High Courts could exercise, only if they possessed those powers; in other words, if a High Court does not already possess the powers specified in Article 226 of the Constitution, the aforesaid Article does not empower it to exercise them and there is no remedy for the applicants except to go to the Supreme Court under Article 32(1) for the enforcement of fundamental right.3. The learned Government Advocate has cited Anant B...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›