Madhya Pradesh Court March 1951 Judgments
Prakash Vs. State of Madhya Bharat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-1951
Reported in: 1953CriLJ982
ORDERMehta, J.1. This is an application by one Prakash Sarkar under Section 491, Criminal P.C. Prakash was arrested by Indore Police and detained for two months from 16.2.51 under the orders of the District Magistrate District Indore. He has been detained under Section 3(1)(a), Sub-clause (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act No. IV of 1950. On 26.2.1951 the grounds were supplied to the detenue as required by Section 7 of the said Act. The detenu contended that he is a peaceful citizen and that none of his activities was such as to endanger public tranquility of the City of Indore. The allegations contained in the grounds are false, vague and extraneous for the purposes of the Act. The grounds did not satisfy the requirements of Section 7, Preventive Detention Act, and hence the applicant's detention is illegal.2. It will be necessary to examine minutely the grounds under Section 7, Preventive Detention Act, under which the detenu is kept in detention. In my opinion, the ground No. 5 th...
Tag this Judgment!Babu, Son of Sirjeram and anr. Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ134
Shinde, J.1. This is a special appeal under Section 25 of the High Court of Judicature Act. Accused Babu and Uttamsingh were convicted under Sections 292 and 385 of the Gwalior Penal Code and sentenced each to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Re. 1/- and 4 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- respectively. Against that decision the accused filed an appeal for acquittal and the Government filed a revision for enhancement of sentence. A division bench of the High Court dismissing the appeal of the accused, accepted the revision of the Government and enhanced the sentence to life imprisonment and a fine of Re. 1/- each under Section 292 of the Gwalior Penal Code. Against that decision the accused have filed this appeal.2. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the High Court erred in law in enhancing the sentence to life imprisonment which the Sessions Judge was not competent to pass. This argument is advanced on the anal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›