Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Bherusingh Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-1956
Reported in: 1956CriLJ1408
Samvatsar, J.1. The facts of the prosecution case are that the appellants Bherusingh and Shareef were residents of Dhulet in Mahidpur Tehsil. On the morning of 5-10-1954, these two persons reached the village Rudrakheda and made inquiries at the house of Raisingh for the deceased Ramchandra. Ramchandra was not at home and they were informed that he had gone to the house of Bapusingh Patel. Bherusingh and Shareef went to Bapusingh's house where Ramchandra was engaged in some work. Bherusingh then carried a 'Lohangi' in his hand whereas Shareef was armed with a stick.On seeing these persons Ramchandra stopped work and returned with them. They had scarcely walked some distance when Ramchandra is alleged to have been beaten by Bherusingh and Shareef with the weapons they had carried. Ramchandra fell down near the house of one Kriparam and died as a result of the injuries on the spot.2. On hearing the noise of the beating, people rushed to the scene of occurrence. Bherusingh and Shareef ran...
Kishanlal Vs. Railway Police
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ194
ORDERNevaskar, J.1. This is a reference made by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows:Accused Kishanlal is being prosecuted for an offence under Section 379 I. P. C. before the Railway Magistrate Indore. In this case after the examination of the prosecution evidence charge was framed against the accused on 25-5-1955. The accused was questioned as to whether he wanted any of the prosecution witnesses to be cross-examined and he informed that he wanted to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7.Accordingly the Court fixed 4th and 5th of August 1955 for their cross-examination. On 4th the counsel for the accused was absent. The accused thereupon applied for adjournment. He also stated in the application that he could not obtain the copies of the statements of the prosecution witnesses whom he wanted To cross-examine.The Court rejected the application and the accused was required to cross-examine the witness...
The State Vs. Pancham and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ283
ORDERDixit, J.1. The facts of this reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Morena are that one Raghuwar Dayal filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaore against Harvilas, Pancham and seven others in respect of offences under sections 147, 325, 380 and 506 I. P. C. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr. P. C. issued processes for the attendance of the accused persons fixing 16th March 1956 as the date for the production of the complainant's evidence.In the meantime on 1st March 1955 the police presented a challan against Harvilas and Paucham in respect of an offence under Section 324 I. P. C. on the same facts as those alleged by Raghuwar Dayal in his complaint. Harvilas and Pancham took the objection that as the Magistrate had already taken cognisance of the offences alleged by the complainant against them, it was not competent for the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence under Section 324 I. P. C., ...
Asaram Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ193
ORDERDixit, J.1. The applicants are being tried by, the Additional Sessions Judge of Shajapur on charges under Sections 148, 149 and 302 1. P, O, During the trial when the prosecution had closed their evidence, the accused persons made an application under Section 510 of the Criminal Procedure Code as amended by Act No. XXVI of 1955 for summoning the chemical examiner, who had made a report about certain blood stains. The learned Sessions Judge granted the prayer directing the accused persons to bear the expenses of summoning the chemical examiner and to examine him as their witness.2. In this revision petition it is urged by Mr. Kak learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicants should not have been saddled with the cost and expenses of summoning the chemical examiner and that the witness should have been examined as a witness of the prosecution. So far as the direction of the Additional Sessions Judge Shajapur with regard to the expenses of summoning the witness is concerned, ...
Mangharam (J.B.) and Co. Vs. Kher (K.B.) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1956
Reported in: (1957)ILLJ76MP
Dixit, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of (sic) Constitution Praying that a writ of issue of a (sic) in the nature of quo warranto against (sic) non-applicant Sri K.B. Kher to show (sic) cause as to by what authority he is func- (sic) as a tribunal under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947). And is exercising and performing the powers, duties and functions of a tribunal under the Act, and for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing proceedings before Mr. Kher in respect of an industrial dispute between the petitioner and J.B. Mangharam Biscuit Factory Labour Union, Gwalior, as also the proceedings commenced against the petitioner under Section 63A of the Act.2. The facts which give rise to this petition are not in controversy and may be shortly stated. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides by Section 7 for the establishment of industrial tribunals. The relevant portion of that section is as follows:1. The appropriate Government may con...
Baijnath Prasad Tripathi Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-1956
Reported in: 1956CriLJ975
Mathur, J.C.1. This is an appeal by Baij Nath Prasad Tripathi, ex Sub-Inspector of Police, against his conviction of offences under Section 161, I.P.C, and under Section 5(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, and the sentence of 9 months R.I. on each count, the two sentences to run concurrently.2. On 30-12-1955, an application was moved on behalf of the appellant raising an objection for the first time that the sanction of a competent authority under Section 6, Prevention of Corruption Act for his criminal prosecution had not been obtained, with the result that the trial was invalid and the order of conviction could not be maintained.In view of the fact that this objection went to the very foundations of the trial and if the sanction had not been obtained as contemplated by Section 6, Prevention of Corruption Act read with Article 311, Constitution of India, the proceedings would have to be quashed, considering that under Section 6, the Courts of law could take cognizance of the case o...
Durga Prasad Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-05-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ285
ORDERDixit, J.1. The facts of this revision petition are that the District Judge of Gwalior has launched a complaint in the Court of City magistrate Lashkar against the applicant Durga Prasad in respect of an offence under Section 193, I. P. C. The complaint was an offshoot of certain proceedings to which Shivnarain was a party. He, therefore, engaged a counsel to appear on his behalf in the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant on the complaint filed by the District Judge. The applicant objected to the appearance of Shivnarain Sharma in the case. The learned City Magistrate after hearing the objections of the petitioner came to the conclusion that under Section 493 Cr. P. C. the opponent Shivnarain Sharma could be allowed to appear.Durga Prasad then applied to the Sessions Judge of Gwalior for a revision of the order of the City Magistrate permitting Shivnarain Sharma to appear. This was rejected. The accused has now come up in revision to this Court.2. The sole questi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›