Madhya Pradesh Court September 1955 Judgments
Bajirao Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ369
ORDERNevaskar, J.1. The only question involved in this revision petition is whether the lower court, which is in this case the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, was justified in refusing to entertain an appeal on the ground that after the trial court had passed an order under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code directing the petitioner to furnish security for keeping peace for a period of one year practically the whole of the period had elapsed and that only 15 days remained,2. The view taken by the Court below was that in pursuance of the order of the trial court the petitioner had furnished security and also had preferred appeal and that when the appeal came up for hearing only 15 days had to pass for completing the period of one year for which the security was demanded and it was therefore futile to entertain the appeal and to interfere therein for by so doing it would merely determine an academic point.3. It is clear that the proceedings under Section 107 Criminal Procedure C...
Tag this Judgment!Siadullah Khan Vs. State of Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1955
Reported in: 1955CriLJ1563
ORDERMathur, J.C.1. This is a criminal revision by Said-ullah Khan against his conviction of an offence Under Section 295, Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of four months' rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court had sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment but on appeal the conviction was upheld and the sentence was reduced to four month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The revision application was admitted crs two grounds, firstly that on the facts proved the offence committed was an attempt of the offence Under Section 295, Penal Code, and not the substantive offence Under Section 295 and secondly that in the existing conditions in the Bhopal State the sentence erred towards severity.3. The relevant portion of Section 295, Penal Code, runs as below :Whoever... defiles any... object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any persons is likelv to consider such... defilement as an i...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Gopal Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ621
Dixit, J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench for decision is whether judicial notice of Government notifications can be taken under Section 57, Evidence Act and, if so. of what notifications. It is necessary to state the facts of the case to understand the implications of the question.The respondent Gopal Singh was tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mhow on a charge under Section 33(a), 'Madhya Bharat Madak Dravya Vidhan' for being in possession, without a permit, of liquor in excess of the maximum quantity prescribed by a notification issued under the Act. m the trial the notification was neither produced nor exhibited.The trial Magistrate, therefore, relying on -- State v. Bachchulal', Madh-B LJ 1952 HCR 119 (A) held that the prosecution by its omission to prove the notification had failed to establish the essential fact that it was an offence to possess liquor in excessi of a certain quantity and that no judicial notice could be taken of any such notification. Accordi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawani Singh Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ44
ORDERMathur, J.C.1. This is an application for bail by Bhawani Singh approver. His bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Bhopal.2. It has been urged that the criminal case in which Bhawani Singh was given pardon has been pending for decision for a long period and in view of the fact that one of the absconding accused has been arrested, there is no likelihood of sessions cases being decided within a reasonable time. It was further contended that Section 337(3), Criminal P.C. cannot be deemed to be of a mandatory nature and consequently the Court could grant bail to the approver. 3. Section 337(3), Criminal P.C., runs us below:Such person unless he is already on bail shall be detained in custody until the termination of the trial.It is true that the nature of any provision, whether discretionary or of a mandatory nature, is not to be construed from the word 'shall' or 'may' used therein. In certain cases the. word 'shall' can be regarded not to be of a mandatory nature if ...
Tag this Judgment!Nanji Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ199
Nevaskar, J.1. Accused s/o Punja Bhil was prosecuted before the Sessions Judge Ratlam for an offence under Section 302, I. P. C. who found him guilty and sentenced him to transportation for life.2. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction.3. Prosecution case is that on 8-4-54 accused Nanji, deceased Ramla, Poona, Mangatia and other villagers had collected in the morning to aid the construction of the hut of Thavaria. On this occasion the accused hit Ramla with an axe on his head and left cheek causing incised wounds measuring 3' x 1/2' x 1' & 2 1/2' x 1' x 3/4' respectively. Left parietal bone was fractured. Death was due to haemorrhage caused by the injury resulting in the fracture of left parietal bone treating the meninges and lacorating the brain substance.4. Report of this incident was lodged by accused Nauji at the Police Post Khavasa at about H a.m. the same day. Akhtarbeg Police constable who took down the report carried the same to Police Station Thandla whereup...
Tag this Judgment!Manoharlal Rameshwardas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1959MP120
K.L. Pandey, J. 1. The plaintiff initiated an action claiming Rupees 10,100/- as compensation for not being allowed to pluck and remove myrobalan from the forests of certain villages in the Baihar tahsil of Balaghat district. The lower Court accepted the claim in part and passed a decrete for Rs. 1,222/-. The plaintiff has appealed against that part of the decree by which his claim was dismissed. The defendant has filed a cross-objectionagainst the claim decreed by the lower Court. This judgment will govern the appeal as well as the cross-objection. 2. It is no longer disputed that, by three unregistered documents, the plaintiff purported to acquire from the proprietors of certain villages for consideration the right to rear and pluck for some years myrobalan in their forests and to take away the myrobalan so obtainable. The details of those transactions are as given below:-- Names of villagesName of proprietor Date of transaction.Years for which rights were created. I. Pondi Bharri S...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhman Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ374
ORDERMathur, J.1. This is a revision application by Lachhman, applicant, against his conviction of an offence under Section 326 Penal Code, and the sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. The applicant had filed an appeal against this order of conviction but it was dismissed under order dated 6-9-1955 of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.2. The concurrent finding of the two lower Courts is that the appellant had voluntarily caused grievous hurt with a knife. Such a finding cannot be challenged in revision, specially when it is supported by certain circumstances of the case and the defence version given by the applicant cannot be accepted. The applicant had admitted his presence at the time of the assault and the plea taken by him was that the blow was inflicted by Arjun so as to injure him (applicant) but when he bent down the blow struck the complainant, whereby he received the grievous hurt.In case there was any truth in the defence version the co...
Tag this Judgment!Panah Mohd. and anr. Vs. Hasham Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ699
ORDERMathur, J.C.1. This is a revision application by Panah Mohd. and Baldar Khan against the interim order of Shri S. N. Shrivastava, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal directing them to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- so that if final orders in the present proceeding are against them, Hasham Khan, non-applicant, may be compensated to this extent.2. Hasham Khan had been served but he did not put in his appearance to oppose the present revision application. It was, therefore, heard in his absence though the State Counsel was given an opportunity to support the order if he considered necessary. The State Counsel has not opposed the revision application.3. The learned Sessions Judge, was of opinion that Sessions Judges had inherent powers similar to those of the High Courts as indicated in Section 561-A, Criminal P.C. and could consequently impose conditions so that the parties to the proceeding may not be adversely affected, if the decision of the High Court was eventually ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›