Madhya Pradesh Court April 1952 Judgments
Jagannath Harlal Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1203
ORDERChaturvedi, J.1. This is a reference from the Sessions Judge, Goona arising under the following circumstances:One Jagannath was prosecuted and during the course of proceedings some cattle were seized from him, and were delivered to one Mehendra Singh as Supardgidar. When Jagannath was acquitted the Court ordared Mahendra Singh to deliver the cattle to him. Mahendra Singh claimed Rs. 203/- for feeding the cattle. On Nazir's report the Magistrate ordered that Rs. 128/12/- be paid the Mahendra Singh by Jagannath as expenses in feeding the cattle. Jagannath went in revision to the Sessions Judge, Goona who is of the opinion that there was no contract either express or implied with Jagannath to pay this expense to Mahendra Singh. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, recommended that the,' Magistrate's order be set aside and he should be asked to make an inquiry into the actual expenditure that was incurred by the Supardgidar, in keeping the cattle after deducting the cost of milk tha...
Tag this Judgment!Bindrabandas Vs. Sitaram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1392
ORDERSathaye, J.C.1. The applicant Bindrabandas was, on a complaint by the non-applicant Sitaram convicted by the Magistrate Second Class, Raisen, of an offence of causing simple hurt on grave and sudden provocation under Section 334, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. His appeal to the District Magistrate, Raisen was rejected on the ground that the appeal was against a conviction under Section 335, Indian Penal Code which was not true. On revision, the Sessions Judge recommends that the order of the lower appellate Court be set aside as it is illegal and improper.2. The reference has to be accepted. It appears that in the memo of appeal the applicant committed a clerical error in stating that he was convicted under Section 335, I.P.C. and it looks as if the District Magistrate, without examining the record, was looking out for some excuse to dispose of the appeal summarily. It is thus obvious that his order, rejecting the appeal on the ground of a mere clerical...
Tag this Judgment!HarinaraIn and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ692
Radke, A.J.C.1. This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellants under Section 21, Bhopal Public Safety Act, and Sections 147, 332 and 333, Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Code, by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal, sentencing them to various terms of imprisonment, all of which are to run concurrently. One Pannalal, who has also been similarly convicted and sentenced, has filed a separate appeal No. 45 of 1951, and this judgment will decide his case also.2. The facts of the prosecution story are that the District Magistrate, Bhopal, had banned the holding of meetings and taking out of processions under Section 15, Bhopal Public Safety Act, and yet in contravention of the order passed by the District Magistrate, the three accused, along with others, took out a procession on 21.12.1948, and were about to hold a meeting. While they were prevented from taking out the procession from the railway station to the city, they stopped at the level crossing. As they used force and...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Singh Vs. Raghubir Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1449
ORDERChaturvedi, J.1. This revision application arises out of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. The short facts of the case are that one Raghubir Singh who is the non-applicant in this case made an application to the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, First Class, Neemuch, against the-petitioner Ratan Singh alleging that a plot of land behind his house No. 962 in Neemuch city was in-his possession but he had been dispossessed by the petitioner Batan Singh on 9.7.1950. This dispossession was caused by storing some stones and bricks near the back-door of the said house No. 962 and it was alleged that there was likelihood of breach of peace. The Magistrate after the examination of complainant passed a preliminary order holding, that a dispute existed which might cause breach-of peace. After recording the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complainant had been in possession of the piece of land in dispute and was wrongly-disp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›