Madhya Pradesh Court November 1952 Judgments
Jagannath Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ698
ORDERRadke, Addl. J.C.1. This is a revision application against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal confirming the order of the First Class Magistrate, Sehore passed under Section 109, Criminal P.C.2. The Ichhawar Police presented a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Sehore alleging that the non-applicant Jagannath son of Dulichand was found at Pangra under suspicious circumstances and he was brought to the Station House by the Choukidar. It was found that he could not give a satisfactory account of himself and that he had no ostensible means of subsistence. It was, therefore, prayed that he should be bound over under Section 109, Criminal P.C.3. On receipt of the above complaint the Magistrate drew up a preliminary order under Section 112, Criminal P.C. and called upon the non-applicant Jagannath to show cause why he should not be called upon to execute a bond m a sum of Rs. 200 with sureties in the like amount (No. of sureties not mentioned) for a p...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdhani Vs. Swamidin
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ963
ORDERKrishnan, J.C.1. Upon a complaint by his brother-in-law Swamidin, the applicant Ramdhani was convicted by the Magistrate, Beohari, under Section 500, I.P.C. for defaming his own wife, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. The appeal being dismissed he has come up in revision. The point of law is whether the court could have taken cognisance of this complaint not by the person actually defamed but by her brother.2. The facts of the case are common ground for the most part. The applicant had married s the complainant-opposite party's sister. There was some unpleasantness and the wife went away from the applicant and began to live at the place of her brother. From time to time there were attempts to reconcile the two; ultimately, pressed by the brother to take back his wife, the applicant alleged that her reputation has become bad, and that it was widely reported that she was having an improper intimacy with a barber of her brother's village. On receipt of this letter the bro...
Tag this Judgment!Shrilal Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ995
Dixit, J.1. The appellant Shri Lal was tried by the Sessions Judge of Morena for offences under Sections 114, 380, 457 and 302, I.P.C. At the end of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found him guilty under Section 302 read with Section 109, I.P.C. and sentenced him to six years rigorous imprisonment. The accused has now preferred this appeal from Jail against the conviction and sentence. Mr. J.P. Gupta volunteered to appear on behalf of the appellant and we are indebted to him for helping us In the disposal of this appeal.2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, was that on the evening of 22.12.47 at about 7 p.m. the appellant Shrilal, one Hukum Singh & some other seven or eight persons with a view to abduct one Mst. Patha. came to a garden in Morena known as 'Madho Prashad ka garden' where Mst. Patha and the complainant Shriya were staying. It was alleged by the prosecution that Mst. Patha was living with Shriya as his mistress and that Hukm Singh wanted her to live with him. On ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Gangaram and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1680
1. This is an appeal by the State from the decision of the City Magistrate Lashkar acquitting the respondents of a charge under Section 7(1), Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers Act) 1946.2. The charge against the respondent was that on 20.3.51 they sold to one Mohan Lai some cloth in excess of the control price and thus contravened the provisions of the Madhya. Bharat Cotton Control Order, 1948, issued under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946.3. At the hearing of this appeal, the learned Government Advocate rightly and frankly conceded that in view of the decisions of this Court in - The State v. Bachchu Lal, Cri. Appeal No. 37 of 1951 (A); in - State v. Brijlal Dhodi AIR 1953 Madh B 30 (B) and in - Panna Lal v. The State AIR 1953 Madh B 84 (C) he is unable to support the appeal as the notification of the Textile Commissioner issued under the Madhya Bharat Textile Control Order fixing the maximum price of cloth alleged to have been sold was pot produced and proved an...
Tag this Judgment!Saruplchand and Hukumchand Vs. Union of India and Another.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-1952
Reported in: [1953]23ITR382(MP)
DIXIT, J. - This is an application by the petitioners styling themselves as the firm Messrs. Sarupchand Hukumchand of Indore, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of certiorari and a writ of prohibition or a writ of like nature or an order for quashing a provisional assessment of the tax payable by the firm for the assessment year 1950-51, made by the Income-tax Officer, Indore, under Section 23B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and for restraining the opponents from enforcing the assessment order and a notice of demand dated 19th February, 1952, by which the applicants were directed to pay the amount of the tax, namely Rs. 2,58,154-8-0 on or before 29th February, 1952. The petitioners have also filed another application in these proceedings challenging the propriety and validity of an order said to have been made on 29th February, 1952, by the Income-tax Officer, ignoring an order of interim injunction issued by this Court on 29th February, 1952, prohibiting the Inco...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›