Madhya Pradesh Court March 1952 Judgments
Ajudhya Prashad Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ119
ORDERShinde, C.J.1. The only point raised in this case is that, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was wrong in forfeiting security without issuing notice to the parties concerned. It appears that on 13.11.1950 the surety was asked to produce the accused before the court on 22.12.1950. On that date, neither the accused nor the surety was present in the court. Hence the Sub-Divisional Magistrate forfeited the security. Against that order, an appeal was preferred before the District Magistrate. That appeal was dismissed, and the order of the trial court was confirmed. Consequently the surety has filed this revision.2. Section 514, Sub-section (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows:Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, by which a bond under this Code has been taken, or of the court of a Presidency Magistrate or of the Magistrate of the First Class, or, when the bond is for appearance before a court to the satisfaction of such court, that such bond has been forfei...
Tag this Judgment!Baboolal Vs. State Through Police Mandsaur M.B.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1216
ORDERMehta, J.1. The facts leading to this Criminal Revision application are as follows: The applicant-accused Babulal s/o Mannalal of Mandsaur was put up for trial in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Mandsaur, for charge under Section 3(a) of Foodgrains Control of S.Y. 2005 and Section 8 of Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, but it was dismissed. The accused Babulal s/o Mannalal is the manager of the shop of Ramratan Pannalal at Mandsaur. It is alleged that in July 1950, this firm while dealing as adatia & commission agent dealt in grains to the extent of 470 maunds of maize (Makka). It was supplied by them to different merchants at Ratlam and Ramratan Pannalal as adatia earned a commission of Rs. 104-7-6. The case of the prosecution is that the firm Ramratan Pannalal had not obtained license to deal in gra...
Tag this Judgment!Gunni Vs. Babu Lal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1164
ORDERDixit, J.1. This is a petition arising out of an application for maintenance by a wife against her husband. The applicant stated in her petition under Section 488, Cr. P. C. that she was married to the opponent Babu Lal in Samvat 1993; that three years after her marriage the non-applicant Babu Lal contracted a second marriage with one Mt. Pancho and that after his second marriage Babu Lal at the instigation of Mt. Pancho began to illtreat her; that when in Samvat 2005 a son was born to the petitioner from Babu Lal, the illtreatment increased and her husband frequently beat her arid starved her and her child of the necessary clothing and food. The petitioner further stated that on 26.5.50 Babu Lal told her to remain at the service and attendance of his second wife and not to accept any food or clothing from her parents and then subsequently beat her with shoes and drove her out of the house.Babu Lal admitted that the applicant was his wife and that he begot a child from her in Samv...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ17
Dixit, J.1. The two applicants Ram Chand and Rang Lal Daga are being tried by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gwalior, for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 read with Clause 24 of the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order 1946. The prosecution case against them, briefly stated, is that on receiving secret reports that the J.C. Mills Ltd. Gwalior were selling cloth manufactured by them above the control price through their selling agents Messrs. Ram Chandra Jagannath, Mr. Niranjan Das, Deputy Director, Enforcement, New Delhi came to Gwalior on the afternoon of 27.2.52, with a party consisting of Pyare Lal, Inder Lal and some officers of the Enforcement Department with a view to find out by laying m 'trap' whether the Mills did, or did not, sell cloth above the control price.It is said that on his arrival at Gwalior Mr. Niranjan Das posing himself as Ram Lal a Munim of a firm Messrs Babu Badan Singh of Pahasu contacted the applicant Ram Chand of t...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Mangilal Shankarlal Jaiswal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1425
ORDERA.H. Khan, J.1. This is an application which is moved by the learned Government Advocate, for cancellation of a bail granted to the accused by the District Magistrate, Mandsaur, on 5th July 19S1, on the ground that the learned District Magistrate granted an anticipatory bail which is not warranted by law.2. Mr. Karanjkar counsel for the non-applicants has filed a copy of an order of the Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, dated 2.11.51 which shows that both the non-applicants wore released on bail after their appearance before the Sessions Judge. In view of this later order, it is argued that this application loses much of its force. But the point being one of general importance, I may state that in case No. 10-11 of 2003, Criminal Provision Judicial Committee, Huzar Darbar Gwalior, reported in the Gwalior Law Reporter 340 of 2003, June 1947, I had occasion to consider the proposition of an anticipatory bail and, after giving my reasons in, detail, I came to the conclusion that it could be ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Kesari Mal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ441
ORDERDixit, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Gwalior recommending that an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Antari granting anticipatory bail to Kesarimal who apprehends arrest for an offence under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, be set aside.2. This reference must be rejected on the short ground that, if the learned Sessions Judge thinks that the order of bail passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was illegal or improper, the Sessions Judge himself has the power under Section 497(5) of the Criminal P.C. to cancel the bail. The provisions in the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act with regard to bail do not any way affect the discretion vested in the Sessions Judge under Section 497(5) in the matter of cancellation of bail. That being so, it seems to me that it was wholly unnecessary for the Sessions Judge to make this reference to this Court for passing an order with regard to the cancellation of bail. The Sessions Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kehari Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1187
Chaturvedi, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State under Section 417, Criminal P.C., against an order passed by the Sessions Judge Gwalior on 4.12.50 in Criminal Case No. 20 of 1950 acquitting the respondent Kehari Singh of an offence under Section 318, Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution story was that Mst. Konsa, a Rajput widow, aged 24 years, was pregnant, & on 5th January 1950 gave birth to an illegitimate child who was soon throttled and Mst. Konsa's uncle Kehari Singh took the dead body of the child and threw it in a well in village Semari, P.S. Ghatigaon, District Gird. Mst. Konsa was committed to Sessions for standing her trial for offences under Sections 302 and 318, Indian Penal Code, Kehari Singh was committed for standing his trial for offences under Sections 302/109 and 318, Indian Penal Code. Both were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge Gwalior and the State has filed this appeal only against the acquittal of Kehari Singh respondent and the prayer is that 'the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Pitambar Das and ors. Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ109
ORDERDixit, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in an appeal under Section 476(B) of the Cr. P. Code, directing that a complaint for the prosecution of the applicants for giving false evidence be filed before the City Magistrate, Lashkar. It appears from the record that the proceedings under Section 476 of the Code arose out of a Civil suit disposed of by the City Civil Judge, Lashkar. After the disposal of the suit, one Rampyaribai who was a party to the suit applied to the City Civil Judge that the applicants who had appeared in that Civil suit as witnesses be prosecuted for giving false evidence. The learned Civil Judge refused to make a complaint against the applicants. Thereupon, Rampyaribai appealed to the Sessions Judge, Gwalior. A notice of the appeal was given to the applicants and on 26.2.51, the learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties passed an order expressing the opinion that a prima facie case had been made out for th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›