Madhya Pradesh Court October 1956 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of Madhya Bharat Vs. Mohanlal Motilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ189
Nevaskar, J.1. The only question involved In this appeal is whether the Prevention of Corruption Act No. II of 1947 was the law in force within the limits of Railway lands at Mandsaur during the period from November 1947 to May 1948.2. The facts material for the purpose of this appeal are as follows:Accused Mohanlal Motilal Paul, who was formerly employed as Sub-Permanent Way Inspector Western Railways Mandsaur was prosecuted along with one J. D. Bhatt for offences under Sections 6(2) read with Section 5 (1) (c) and (d) of Act No. II of 1947 referred to above and also under Section 420 read with Section 129(b) I.P.C. before the Special Judge Ratlam. After the preliminary inquiry Bhatt was discharged and a charge was framed against Mohanlal under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) and (d) of the aforesaid Act No. II of 1947.The trial then proceeded. Practically at the close of the trial by Notification No. 159(5) J. 480-4/ 52 dated 27-7-1953 published in the Madhya Bharat Government...
Sukharam Karansingh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Bharat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-20-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ452
ORDERDixit, C.J.1. The applicants along with five other persons were put on trial before the Special Court constituted under the Madhya Bharat Public Security Act, 1953, on charges under Sections 302, 307, 395, 397 and 149, I. P. C. The learned Special Judge returned the challan to the police for presentation before the competent Court holding that an offence under Section 149 was not one of those offences which ha was authorised to try under a notification issued under Section 14 of the Act. It is against this order that the present revision petition is directed.2. In my opinion this petition must be rejected. Under Section 14 of the Madhya Bharat Public Security Act 1953 the Special Judge is competent to try onlysuch offences or classes of offences or classes of cases affecting, in the opinion of the Government, the Security of the State, the public safety or the maintenance of public order in such area as the Government may by general or special order in writing direct.On 22nd April...
Capt. Saiyad Ahmad Agha Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-20-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ449
ORDERChaturvedi, J.1. This revision arises under the following circumstances. The petitioner Captain Saiyad Ahmad Agha, at present under suspension, is the Aerodrome Officer, Santa Cruz, Bombay. In 1949, he was Aerodrome Officer at the Indore Aerodrome. It is alleged that during the period 1-1-1949 to 31-5-1949, the petitioner and his subordinate Shri Sinhawal (Station Officer, Indore Aerodrome) engaged in a criminal conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust by dishonestly obtaining salaries in the names of N. V. Parmeshwaram and S. K. Biswas showing them as Radio Telephone Operators at the Indore Aerodrome.Thus they are alleged to have misappropriated the amount of their salaries during the period 1-1-1949 to 31-5-1949. It is also alleged that false acquittance rolls were prepared and false signatures of the two persons were appended. On 7-5-1951, an anonymous application was made to the Central Intelligence Officer, Civil Aviation Department.Eventually, the Delhi Special Police E...
Bhansingh Jubarsingh Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ67
ORDERChaturvedi, J.1. This is a revision against an order passed by the Special Judge, Dhar on 29-11-1955.2. The petitioner, who is under suspension, is a Sub-Divisional Officer in the Public Works Department of Madhya Bharat State. He was in charge of famine relief work on the Tanda-Zirnbad road. As Sub-Divisional Officer he was entrusted with Government funds for payment to labourers. One Jai Gopal Shukla was the Sectional Officer and Nasirali was the time-keeper, both being subordinates of the petitioner. The petitioner is being prosecuted along with Jaigopal Shukla and Nasirali for misappropriating a sum of Rs. 94-8-0 by preparation of false muster-rolls. It is said that all the three had engaged in a conspiracy to misappropriate Government funds and all of them were challanged for offences under Sections 467, 471, 477A, 120B, I. P. C., and also under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused Nasirali was produced before the Special Judge who was requested for tend...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›