Madhya Pradesh Court October 1955 Judgments
State Vs. Mithalal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ197
Nevaskar, J.1. Accused Chhotelal, Munim of accused Mithalal, proprietor of Messrs Pratap Stores on 20-6-1950 was alleged to have sold 7 yards of cotton cloth of the variety known as 'long Cloth' to Balwansingh who was a bogus purchaser at the rate of Rs, 1-12-0 when the control price was Rs, 1-6-9. In the cash memo issued from the shop, it is said, the details as required by Clause 18, Madhya Bharat Cloth and Yarn Dealers Licensing Order, 1948 were not mentioned. The shop was raided as soon as the trap was successful. From the cash-box of the shop were recovered marked currency notes given by the bogus purchaser Balwantsingh to accused Chhotalal. Cloth was seized from the possession of Balwantsingh. Punchanama was made by the Textile Inspector attached to the office Of the Department Of Civil Supplies.2. On these facts, the accused were prosecuted and on a finding by the Additional District Magistrate that the facts alleged by the prosecution were proved they were convicted. Each of th...
Tag this Judgment!Mangibai Vs. Bhagwandas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ289
ORDERChaturvedi, J.1. The Additional District Magistrate, Mandsaur, on 16-5-1955 convicted and sentenced the accused Bhagwandas, non-applicant in this application, to three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 411 I. P. C. and also ordered that the five ornaments which Were recovered from this Bhagwandas should be given to complainant's brother Chunnilal, Bhagwandas filed an appeal against his conviction and the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, who heard the appeal, came to the conclusion that the ornaments which were recovered from Bhagwandas were his own. At last the court came to the conclusion that they did not belong to the complainant for there was a lot of difference between the weight that was given in the First Information Report and the actual weight of the ornaments. He also emphasised the point that the ornaments Were not identified before any Magistrate. He. therefore, set aside the conviction and the sentence Passed on the accused and acquitted him. But he did n...
Tag this Judgment!Champalal Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ404
Dixit, J.1. This reference arises out of a revision petition against an order dated 29-6-1950 of the Additional District Magistrate, Jhabua, cancelling the bail of the applicant Champalal and ordering his re-arrest. The applicant Champalal was arrested on 9-10-49 in connection With offences under Sections 395, 397 398, 126, 120(b), 148 and 332 read with Section 109, I.P.C. A 'challan against him for these offences was filed on 31-12-49 in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Jhabua.The accused then applied to the Magistrate as also to the Sessions Judge, Jhabua, for being released on bail, but his applications were rejected. Ultimately the applicant was ordered to be released on bail by my learned brother Mehta J. The order dated 23-5-1949 directing the release of the accused on bail also mentioned that:in case the accused applicant tries to tamper with the prosecution evidence for which there must be definite proof, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bon...
Tag this Judgment!Aijaz Masih and ors. Vs. Desouza
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ373
ORDERMathur, J.C.1. This order governs two references made by the Sessions Judge, Bhopal in two criminal cases, which have been registered in this court as Criminal Revisions Nos. 21 and 22 of 1955. Criminal Revision No. 21 of 1955 arises out of the criminal case instituted by Desouza against Shrimati Aijaz Masih and other Criminal Revision No. 22 of 1955 arises out of criminal case instituted by the same Desouza against Kumari Sheela and others.2. The women accused of in two cases did not appear in the trial court after the service of summonses on them but moved applications for exemption from personal attendance. These applications were dismissed. They went up in revision before the Sessions Judge, Bhopal who has made a reference to this Court for quashing the order of the learned Magistrate. The recommendation being (sic) made by the Sessions Judge has not been clearly indicated but what I gather from the opinion expressed by him in that according to him, the women accused should ha...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Keshavrao Ingle
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ229
ORDERAbdul Hakim Khan, J.1. The facts leading to this revision are that the accused Keshavrao Ingle, Sub-Inspector of Police in-charge of Kalapipal Police Station, after collecting a few constables from his as well as other stations, made a raid upon village Amarsingh at about midnight of 17-6-1954 in search of Jairam Bhopa, who was suspected of having stolen some property.On reaching the spot, he surrounded the huts and then enquired of the inmates about the whereabouts of Jatram Bhopa. One person from the hut began to move away, whereupon the Sub-Inspector challenged him and thinking that he was Jairam said 'Jairam, do not try to run away'. It is said that Prabha Shankar constable was handed over the revolver by the Sub-Inspector and was asked to shoot.Prabha Shankar, in obedience to the orders of his superior fired at the man, who was injured and he died eventually. It was later on discovered that the man, who was killed was not the person wanted by the Police. The Police challaned ...
Tag this Judgment!Naththu Tulsi Vs. Anok Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ1021
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.C.1. These are connected revision applications. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record. Naththoo applicant filed a complaint under Sections 147 & 392 I.P.C. against Anok Singh & 8 others in the Court of the Magistrate on 24-12-54. After taking evidence under Section 202, Cr. P. 0., all the nine persons were summoned under Section 395, I.P.C. The applicant examined himself and 4 other witnesses Chappa, Jukku, Tirra and Kanhai. The Magistrate examined Shri Madho Prasad Dy. Superintendent of Police under Section 540 Cr. P.C. He framed a charge under Section 392, I. P. C against Anok Singh and discharged the remaining 8 accused persons without giving his reasons for doing so as required under Section 209 Cr. P.C. The applicant moved the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 437, Cr. P. C but his application was rejected. Against that order criminal revision No. 88 of 1955 has been filed. Naththoo's case was that all ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›