Madhya Pradesh Court November 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.
The State Vs. Sadhu Singh Pahusingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP47; 1957CriLJ641
ORDERA.H. Khan, J.1. The Noorabad Police put up a challan before the Special Judge, exercising powers under the Madhya Bharat Public Security Act for charges under Sections 302, 307 and 149, I. P. C. On the facts disclosed by the Police, the Special fudge framed charges under Sections 302, 307, 149, 324, 325 and 326, I P C. Thereafter the Court returned the challan to the Police on the ground that it was incompetent to try the case under Sections 149, 324, 325 and 326, I. P. C. The Police has filed this revision against the return of the challan.2. The learned Government Advocate Concedes that the Special Judge is not empowered to try offences under Sections 324, 325 and 326, I. P. C. But he contends that the Special Judge can try an offence under Section 149, I. P. C. But this point has been considered in Sukharam Karan Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat, Criminal Revn. No. 99 of 1956: (AIR 1957 Madh B 134) (A) and my learned brother, Dixit, J., has held that a Special Judge constituted ...
Sadhuram Vs. Engineer Telegraphs
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP52
ORDERSen, J.bv1. This is a petition by Sadhuram under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for adirection in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 31-8-1955, removing him from serviceand for his reinstatement.2. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary peon in the Ministry of Communication, Post and Telegraphs, by the Additional Chief Engineer, Jabalpur, by order Ex. P. 1, dated 16-3-1951, with effect from 7-2-1951, and was posted in the Office of the Additional Chief Engineer. On 11-3-1953, the Divisional Engineer Telegraphs passed an order Ex. P. 2 to the effect that as the petitioner was appointed on probation for one year with effect from the forenoon of 1-12-1951 and as he had already officiated for one year, he was confirmed in the aforesaid appointment with effect from 1-12-1951 forenoon.3. The duty of the petitioner was to open and stamp official letters received by post and place them before the Office Superintendent, Shri A. K. Gupta. A cyclostyled letter d...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP226
Dixit, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 1935 by which an application filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ quashing an order passed by the Madhya Bharat Government on 3rd December 1953, dismissing the petitioner from service, was rejected.2. The petitioner was employed in the Custom and Excise Department as a Distillary Inspector. A departmental inquiry was held against him with regard to certain illegal and unauthorised issue of liquor from Burwah Distillery, while the petitioner was posted there as an Inspector. The inquiry was Conducted in the presence of the petitioner and as a result thereof on 17th October 1951, a charge-sheet in respect of his acts of omission and commission was framed against him. He gave his reply to the charges which was considered by the Deputy Commissioner holding the inquiry.Thereafter the petition...
The State Vs. Shambhudayal Dhumansingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP17; 1957CriLJ510
Samvatsar, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the Municipal Magistrate, Indore, acquitting the three respondents who were prosecuted for olfence under Sections 3 & 4 of the Madhya Bharat Gambling Act. 2. On 27-1-1934 Mr. Mahajan, the Sub-Inspector Incharge Malharganj Police Station, received credible information that gambling in American Futures was carried on in the shop of respondent No. 1 Shambhudayal. He thereupon called one Azizulrehman and gave him a one-rupee note for offering a bet on figures '3' and '7'. Puncha-(sic) of delivery of the note to Azizulrehman was drawn up in which the number of the one-rupee note is mentioned. The Panchanama is produced in this case as P/1. 3. As instructed by the police officer, Mr. Mahajan, Azizulrchman went to the shop of respondent No. 1 and offered six annas as bet on the figure of '3' and six annas as bet on the figure of '7' and delivered the one-rupee note to respondent No. 1. The note was a...
Hemchand Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP48; 1957CriLJ758
ORDER1. This petition of prisoner Hemchand Jain under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the orders of the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Jabalpur, forfeiting certain periods of remission to be counted under the Rules issued by the State Government under the Prisons Act, 1894, and the Prisoners Act, 1900.2. The prisoner was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment in a criminal case on 11-7-1953. He was on bail until 11-5-1954 and was committed to prison on 12-5-1954 on dismissal of his appeal. He was again released on bail on 24-5-1954 and was re-admitted to jail on 16-9-1955. Thereafter he was again released on bail on 20-1-1956 and was re-committed to prison on 16-5-1956. In this connection, it was not disputed before us that in the State Government's return the date 17-5-1956, is a mistake for 16-5-1956. Since 16-5-1956, the prisoner is serving sentence. The sentence would accordingly expire on 28-12-1956 and not on 29-12-1956 as stated by the State Gover...
Shop Baboolal Mangilal and anr. Vs. Firm Mangilal Balkishan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP90
1. This is a defendant's second appeal against a decree for Rs. 4,117-15-0 with costs in the two Courts below.2. The facts of the case are simple, and the arguments were limited to only one point. There were forward contracts between the parties in Alsi, and the present matter relates to a transaction of 1945 involving a sum of Rs. 3643-7-0 and costs. Though there were earlier transactions between the parties, the accounts were admittedly adjusted before the last transaction was made, and no balance was 'due on either side. The present transaction was admittedly a forward contract. There were pleas that it was a wagering contract, but those pleas have been negatived in the Courts below and the plaintiff-firm has been awarded a decree for the amount claimed by it less some deduction in the matter of interest.3. In this appeal only one argument has been raised, that the transaction was hit by the Oilseeds (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1943. The plaintiff-firm claimed an exemptio...
Firm Deochand Pannalal and ors. Vs. Shubhkaran Shivdeoji
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP9
ORDERDixit, J. 1. This is a petition to revise an order of the second Additional District Judge, Indore, rejecting the objection of the applicants that ant application for execution of a decree against them filed by the non-applicant Shubhkaran on 15th March, 1951, was not maintainable inasmuch as the decree had been attached by Messrs. Khemji Punja & Co., Bombay, in execution of their own. decree against Shubhkaran. The precise objection raised by the applicants in the lower Court, and negatived there was that the non-applicant had not obtained the leave of the Court making the attachment. 2. Before me Mr. Tayal learned counsel for the applicants, urged that under the order of attachment of the decree in question issued on 6th October, 1951 by the Additional District Judge, Indore to the Court of the District Judge, Indore, the execution of the decree was stayed until the court of the Additional District Judge, Indore which passed the decree in favour of Messrs. Khemji Punja & Co., ca...
Surendra Bhardwaj S/O Kedarnath Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP4; 1957CriLJ454
ORDERA.H. Khan, J. 1. On a complaint being filed by the Public Prosecution under Section 198-B of the Criminal Procedure Code for two defamatory articles which appeared in the 'Dainik Sanik' of Agra, the applicant took the plea that in so far as the alleged defamation was of a class, namely the Madhya Bhara-t Police Force, no complaint can lie under Section 198-B. The Court rejected the plea and it is against this order that the revision is filed.2. It seems that the applicant published two articles under the headings ^^D;k ekuflax dk xksyh ekjus ds igys tgj fn;kx;k** vkSj ^^ekuflax jgL;ij e/;Hkkjr iqyhl ijnk Mky jgh gS**The complaint was that these two articles defamed Mr. Putto Singh, the D. I. G., Madhya Bharat, who was in charge of the Police operations in the disturbed area to wipe out the dacoits. The applicant contended that the articles did not bear the name of Mr. Putto Singh and that they were general in their nature. It is true that the trend of law is that when a libellous ...
Bardichand Vs. Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957MP92
Nevaskar, J.1. Bardichand son of Magniram filed a suit against defendants Sonibai and Laxmibai in the Court of Civil Judge Second Class, Badnawar for declaration and separate possession of certain items of joint family property consisting of land, mango-trees and houses. Before the trial Court objection was raised on behalf of the defendants with regard to the court-fees paid. Along with the other issues at the time of final decision the trial Court held on the question of court-fees that it was inadequate. The appropriate amount, according to him, ought to be Rs. 253-2-0 whereas the amount paid was Rs. 41-6-0.He, therefore, while decreeing the plaintiff's suit for possession gave a direction in the decree that unless the requisite amount of court-fees were made good within 15 days the plaintiff-decree-holder will not be entitled to execute his decree, and that the said decree would not be binding upon defendants in any manner. The plaintiff failed to deposit the requisite court-fee wi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›