Madhya Pradesh Court November 1951 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of M.B. Vs. Gopal Govind Sinnarkar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1033
ORDERMehta, J.1. This is a reference made by the Municipal Magistrate First Class Indore City under the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act No. XXIV of 1951. Section 432 (as amended) of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that where any Court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision, contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the determination of which, is necessary for the disposal of the case, and is of opinion that such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that Court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the Court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefor, and refer the same for the decision of the High Court. The Municipal Magistrate is of opinion that the Deputy Director of Food has no power or jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Madhya Bharat Essential...
Kana and ors. Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-1951
Reported in: 1953CriLJ6
Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioners are fourteen in number. All are residents of Chohankhedi. They were challaned by Khudel Police under Sections 325, 147 and 149, and were convicted only under Section 147 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Second Class, Paragana Indore. Petitioners Govinda, Mangya, and Budhya were fined Rs. 50/- each. The remaining applicants were sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment each and Rs. 50/- fine each. They appealed to the Sessions Judge who dismissed their appeal so far as their conviction was concerned but he allowed the appeal (except in the case of Kana, appellant) so far as the sentence was concerned and set aside the sentence of imprisonment but maintained the fine imposed on each applicant. Kana's appeal was dismissed and his sentence was also maintained. Kana and others have come in revision to this court; and, Mr. Bharucha contends, firstly, that the distinction in the sentence made by the Court in Kana's case and in the case of others cannot ...
Punam Chand Vs. State and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-1951
Reported in: 1953CriLJ236
ORDERChaturvedi, J.1. This is a reference by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, recommending that the conviction of the petitioner under Section 103, Sub-section (2) of the Cantonments Act and the sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 20/- passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, First Class, Mhow, in criminal case No. 53 of 50 of his file be set aside.2. The facts are that the petitioner is the proprietor of the Modern Radio House at Mhow. The Cantonment Executive Officer served on him a notice (Ex. P/1) dated the 19th November 1949, which is as follows:You are hereby required to furnish the following information to me within 10 days of receipt hereof namely:(a) A statement of the entire Radio goods and other goods with quantity and description, imported by you Into this Cantonment during the month of April 1949, giving the dates of import and value of the goods.(b) Place or places from where imported and the names and addresses of the persons or firms from whom you purchased the g...
Narvirchand and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ246
ORDERDixit, J.1. The six petitioners in this case have been convicted by the Additional District Magistrate Shivpuri under Section 9(b) of the Indian Opium Art and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment each for the offence. An appeal preferred by the accused persons against their convictions and sentences was rejected by the Sessions Judge of Guna. They have now come up in revision to this Court.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated is that on the night of 27.4.1951, Mr. Ram Singh, the Collector and District Magistrate, Raj Garh noticed in Pachhar Hotel a motor car bearing Registration No. P.N.E. 3002 carrying a flag generally town by Rulers of Indian States. The car had a break down and the petitioners Balaram, Minaram, Hira Singh and Jit Singh were repairing the car. Mr. Ramsingh, thinking that the car belonged to some Ruler of former Indian States made some inquiries about the persons travelling in the car. He was told by the applicant Narootam that Narvir Chand was the Ra...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›