Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Bharamanand Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ284
Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Municipal Magistrate, Indore, under Section 12 of the Madhya Bharat Gambling Act (No. 51 of 1949) for the offence of gaming in a Public street. He has been fined Rs. 25/-. The order also added that the money recovered from the Possession of the accused (petitioner) should be forfeited and sent to the Treasury. The petitioner went in appeal but the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, dismissed this appeal. So he has come in revision to this Court.2. The only point pressed by Mr. Ojha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the Courts below were in error in passing an order of confiscating the money found with the accused as there was no evidence to show that it was connected in any way with the commission of the crime and there is nothing on record to justify a presumption that it was an instrument of gaming or money received as bet.3. Mr. Ojha places reliance on the wording Of Section 12 of the Act, the materia...
Brijnath Kedarnath Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ188
ORDERChaturvedi, J.1. These are three references made by the Sessions Judge, Indore, in three different cases against the accused-petitioner Brijnath. As the point of law involved is common, this decision will dispose of all the three references.2. Petitioner Brijnath, an employee in the State Electric Supply Company is being prosecuted under Sections 409 and 465, I. P. C., for different items in these three cases. In his defence, he wanted two letters, both dealing with the sanction for his prosecution, one being from the Inspector General of Police to the Home Secretary and another letter from the Assistant Home Secretary to the Secretary Public Works Department. The accused-petitioner thinks that there is something in his favour in these letters, and, therefore, he wants them to be produced in the trial Court. The Inspector General of Police claimed privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. This claim was accepted by the trial Court; but the Sessions Judge com...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›