Madhya Pradesh Court November 1957 Judgments
Chandkhan Noonkhan Musalman and anr. Vs. Kishanlal Gangaram Parwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP242; 1958CriLJ1041
Abdul Hakim Khan, J. 1. The short facts leading to this revision are that the complainant Kishanlal, partner of the Jain Bidi Company, Guna, filed a complaint against Moti Khan and Chand Khan, proprietors of C. M. Bidi Co, alleging that the accused have used the false 'trade mark'. The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 482 of the I. P. C. for using false trade-mark and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 250/-, and the complainants were also awarded compensation to the tune of 200 rupees under Section 545 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Aggrieved by this decision, the accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Guna but that decision was confirmed by him. Now the accused have filed this revision. 2. I am surprised that the lower courts have failed to consider an elementary point, which is so patent on the face of the record. The label fixed on the bundle of the complainants' Bidis bears No. '16', whereas the label on the bundle of the Bidis of the accused bears No. '19...
Tag this Judgment!Mubarakali Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP157; 1958CriLJ764
ORDERA.H. Khan, J.1. The facts giving rise to this revision are that on 11-1-1957, one Mr. Bhalla made a report that when he went to the Railway Station Gola-Ka-Mandir to enquire whether empty boxes could be dispatched from Gola-Ka-Mandir Station to Delhi, he found that the Station Master was at first unwilling to book them. But later on, he agreed to book empty boxes, provided Mr. Bhalla paid As, 10 per box by way of gratification. Mr. Bhalla did not agree to it. The following day when Mr. Bhalla when to the Station again, he did not find the Station Master on duty. In his place the A. S. M. was working. On being told what his purpose was, the A. S. M. climbed down to a lower figure and asked Mr. Bhalla to give him only As. 8 per box. Mr. Bhalla did not agree to this proposal also and made a report giving all these facts.Sub-Inspector Nannoram, on receiving the report laid a trap and went to the Station of Gola-Ka-Mandir from where in his presence Mr. Bhalla dispatched certain boxes. ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rehman and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP285; 1958CriLJ1194
ORDERA.H. Khan, J. 1. The two revisions arise out of the same case and are being disPosed of by a common order. 2. The short facts leading to this case are that on 17-7-1955 a motor car travelling on Bombay-Agra Road was stopped by an Excise Inspector at Shajapur. On being searched it revealed some opium. All the five persons travelling in the Car were arrested and challaned before the First Class Magistrate, Shajapur, who convicted all the accused under Section 9(a) and (b) of the Opium Act. On appeal by the accused, their conviction and sentences were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur. Now the accused have filed this revision. 3. Two legal points have been pressed in this revision. 4. One is that the procedure adopted by the trial Court under Section 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code was wrong. The report filed before the Magistrate was by an Excise Officer and that it should have been treated as a complaint and therefore the Magistrate should have proceeded under ...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Prasad Mishra Vs. Chandulal Alias Jagdish Prasad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP257
ORDER1. This application arises out of First Appeal No. 33 of 1946 which has bad rather an unfortunate and chequered career in this Court. It appears that in that appeal there were several respondents and two of them, viz., respondent No. 7 and respondent No. 8, were minors. During the pendency of the appeal one oE the minors became major and an application was made by the appellant informing the Court about this. On 10th December, 1951 that application was put up before this Bench. The Bench required the office to report if an affidavit was necessary in view of a ruling of Mangalmurti and Mudholkar, JJ. in First Appeal no. 2 of 1949. It appears that the application was not accompanied by an affidavit which, according to the Rules of this High Court has to be filed along with every application stating a fact. The case was put up before the same Bench on 10th December, 1951, and the Bench ordered as follows :-- 'Shri P. S. Pultambkar for the appellant. We have seen the ruling of the Div...
Tag this Judgment!Khemchand Rajmal Vs. Rambabu Johrimal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP131
ORDERV.R. Nevaskar, J. 1. Facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: 2. Non-applicant Rambabu obtained an ex parte decree for money against the petitionerMessrs. Khemchand Rajmal through Proprietor Rajmai. The decree was transferred by the Delhi Court to the Court of Civil Judge, Indore within whose jurisdiction the judgment-debtor carried on business. An application was thereupon submitted on behalf of the applicant judgment-debtor under Order 21, Rule 29 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of execution alleging that prior to the filing of the present execution petition by the non-applicant Rambabu, he had filed Civil Suit No. 40 of 1955 in that Court for accounts on the ground of his being the agent of the applicant which was pending and that according to the applicant's estimate he was entitled to recover Rs. 1362/- over and above the amount in execution. 3. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that no sufficient cause had been sh...
Tag this Judgment!Basantilal Bheruji Parmar Vs. Nirwachan Padadhikari and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP181
ORDERA.H. Khan, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari. The circumstances in which the writ is sought for are as follows :--2. The petitioner Basantilal filed his nomination paper as a candidate for the election of Agar Municipality from Wards Nos. 4 and 8. During the scrutiny of the nomination papers, Narayan Das, non-applicant No. 2 took an objection that the petitioner had been previously disqualified under Section 14 (1) (g) of the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act. A similar objection' was taken by Bhuramal, non-applicant No. 3 The objections against his nomination papers' were disallowed by the Returning Officer, Aggrieved by the order, non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 filed an appeal under Section 34 of the Nir-wachan Padadhikari, namely, the Collector of Shajapur.He allowed the appeal and, rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had incurred disqualification under Section 14(1) (g) of the Madhya Bhara...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Chhotelal GangadIn Gadariya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1959MP203; 1959CriLJ718
T.P. Naik, J.1. The non-applicant accused Chhotelal was convicted of murder of his wife and child by the Sessions Judge, Nimar, and sentenced to death. The case has been referred to us for confirmation of that sentence under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused has declined to appeal.2. The learned counsel for the accused Chhotelal did not dispute the factual responsibility of the accused for the homicide of his wife Mst. Pyaribai and his daughter Narbadi, committed on the night of 9-12-1956 at mauza Sirra. Indeed, the evidence on the point is overwhelming and the accused himself admitted it, by pleading guilty to the charge at the commencement of the Sessions Trial. The only point pressed before us that in the circumstances proved, the plea of insanity raised by the counselfor the accused in the Court of Session had been established.3. The facts of the case shortly stated are as follows: The accused was a workman in the railway gang No. 98 working at mauza Sirra....
Tag this Judgment!Dhannalal and anr. Vs. Thakur Chittarsingh Mehtapsingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1959MP240
B.K. Chaturvedi, J. 1. This is defendants' second appeal from the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sagar, on 20-9-1956, affirming the decree of 25-1-1956 by the Civil Judge (Class II), Khurai, granting a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from running a flour-mill close to the house of the plaintiff-respondent in Manorama Ward of Bina town.2. Plaintiff-respondent has his house at a distance of 8 or 9 feet from the flour-mill. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the working of the flour-mill caused great trouble to the occupants of the house and the smoke, vibrations and the noise of the mill interfered with their physical comforts. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the working of the defendants flour-mill in that locality makes such a great noise generally from 2 P.M. to 9 P.M. and some-days from 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. (with a short break) that during that time it is difficult for the occupants of the plaintiff's house to hear their own ...
Tag this Judgment!State Government Vs. Indarsingh Labhsingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-1957
Reported in: AIR1962MP292
Naik, J.1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of the accused respondent Indarsingh of what was alleged by the prosecution to be an offence under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts found by the Courts below which we see no reason to doubt, are as follows: There was a flag hoisting ceremony at the Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, On 15-8-1955 when Shri Keshwani, Superintendent, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, hoisted the National Flag. Indarsingh was present at the said ceremony. There was also a gathering of about 250-300 persons to witness the ceremony. After the ceremony was over and the gathering was about to disperse, the accused respondent came and unfastened the string of the National Flag. The flag came down and the accused-respondent started trampling over it. Deolalikar (P.W. 1) saw this. He immediately went over to the place and rehoisted the flag. He then asked the accused-respondent why he had brought the flag down. The accused-respondent replied that he had alrea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›