Madhya Pradesh Court September 1950 Judgments
Mirza Ishakali Beg Vs. the Bhopal State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1950
Reported in: 1952CriLJ71
ORDERSathaye, C.J.1. This is an application for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 8.9.1950, for an alleged offence under Sections 6 and 7 read with Section 3, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (Act No xxiv of 1946). His application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sehore was rejected while his application to the Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore is still pending as the learned Additional Sessions Judge found himself helpless to proceed with it in the absence of all the papers connected with the case. Not being sure bow long his application might be pending in that Court, the applicant has now moved this Court for grant of bail.2. It is necessary to state the facts in brief. They were not clear from the Case Diary or the papers that were submitted but were stated by the learned Government Advocate before me. It appears that one Toufiq Jahan Begum was a holder of a licence for dealing in cloth at Bhopal on behalf of her minor son, Sarwatali Khan. Under this licen...
Tag this Judgment!Badrinarayan Puralal Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ509
ORDERShinde, J.1. This application in revision is by Badrinarayan who is awaiting his trial in the Sessions Court at Shajapur. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly these. Badrinarayan was challaned under Section 302, Penal Code in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Susner who committed the accused to the Sessions Court. Before starting the trial the complainant submitted an application to the Sessions Judge to the effect that certain witnesses may be examined. The learned Sessions Judge passed an order to the effect that the application of the complainant being in accordance with the provisions of Section 219, Criminal P.C. is accepted. He also directed, by the same order, the Sub-divisional Magistrate at Susner to examine the witnesses mentioned in the complainant's application from day to day and that the case be sent to the Court before 4-9-1950 as 11-9-1950 had been fixed for hearing. Against this order of the Sessions Judge the accused has filed this revisio...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. D.S. Parchure Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ670
ORDERChaturvedi, J.1. Two revision petns, one on behalf of Dr. D. S. Parchure No. 43 of 1950, & another, on behalf of the State No. 52 of 1950 have come to this Ct. against an order of the learned Ses. J. dated 7-3-1950.2. Briefly the facts are that on 29-10-1949 the Dist. Mag. Gwalior passed an order prohibiting Dr. Parchure to be within the limits of Gwalior District until further order. The order waft served on Dr. Parchure on 30-10-1949 at Dhar under Section 3 (1)(b), Madhya Bharat Maintenance of Public Order Act VII [7] of 1949. On 4-12-49, Dr. Parchure applied to the Dist. Mag. that he desired to enter the District of Gird & he should be permitted. He did not receive any reply & on 7 13 49 Dr. Parchure entered the District Gird, Gwalior at Panihar within the limits of District Gird. Immediately he was put under arrest & was prosecuted under Section 3 Sub-clause 7, Maintenance of Public Order Act. He was convicted by the Addl. Dist. Mag. who sentenced him to six months simple impr...
Tag this Judgment!Brandaban Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ77
Chaturvedi, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by Brandaban against his conviction by the learned Sessions Judge, Behind, under part 1, Section 304, Penal Code, and a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment.2. Ram Prasad and Brandaban were committed to Sessions under Section 302 and Section 324, Penal Code. The Sessions Judge held that an offence under Section 324 was not established against either accused. He also held that guilt under Section 302, Penal Code was not established against Ram Prasad and he acquitted him. Brandaban was convicted as aforesaid. The State has preferred a revision for enhancement of sentence of Brandaban. I have heard both the appeal and the revision and this judgment will dispose of both of them.3. On behalf of the appellant many legal points and points of facts have been raised. I however think that the law-points raised by Mr. Inamdar are important and strike at the very foundation of the case. I therefore take these points first.4. The trial started...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›