Madhya Pradesh Court March 1957 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.
Champabai W/O. Fatia Chamar Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP280; 1958CriLJ1192
V.R. Nevaskar, J. 1. This is a report made by the third Additional Sessions Judge Indore under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Proceedings of inquiry were going on against the petitioner Champabai for offences under Section 302, 307, 109 and 114 I. P. C., which were triable by the Court of Sessions, before the 2nd Additional City Magistrate Indore. During the course of these proceedings five witnesses on behalf of the prosecution were examined. Out of these five four were said to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. On 13-8-1956 the prosecuting inspector after having examined Koushalyabai, the last of these four eye-witnesses reserved the rest of the witnesses and the case was fixed for the statement of the accused and for framing a charge. The next date fixed was 23-8-1956. On 16-8-1956 an application was submitted on behalf of the accused that besides the four eye-witneses examined on behalf of the prosecution two more persons Ramcharan and Mathuribai, disclosed by the pol...
Prakash Chandra JaIn Vs. Jagdish and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP270; 1958CriLJ1189
ORDERT.P. Naik, J.1. Non-applicant No. 1 Jagdish was convicted under Section 457 I. P. C. by the Magistrate, 1st Class, Raipur, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. A gold bar and two gold rings (Article H) seized from him, vide Ex.-P. 17, were ordered to be restored to the complainant applicant under S. 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the course of the investigation, the non-applicant had made a statement Exh. P. 16 in consequence of which the seized article 'H' was recovered by him. His statement as recorded in the memorandum Exh. P. 16 was:^^eSus eksrhyky cStukFk ihjk okys dh pksjh dhgSA f'kon;ky] jkeyky] uUgw] [kq[khukFk cq/kjke] brokjh vkSj QStw ds lkFk esjsfgLls esa dVk gqvk vk/kk dj/ku dk fgLlk vk;k FkkA mls nqxkZ lqukj ls xyok;k gSvkSj xyus ls 2 NYys cu;k;k gwaA 2 NYys vkSj ,d MafM lksuk djhc 4 vaxqy yEch vius?kj ds lekus mls fnokyij eV~Vh esa xMk;k gS fydky dj nsrk gwaA**2. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on ...
Sheshrao and ors. Vs. Sheshrao and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP411
B.K. Choudhuri, J. 1. This appeal is filed by theplaintiffs against a decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Betul in Civil Appeal No. 6-A of 1951 reversing the decree of the trial court in civil suit No. 13-A of 1949 in the court of the Civil Judge Class II Multai. 2. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the appellants for possession of A house measuring 100 cubits by 60 cubits at Multai. The case of the plaintiffs is that this house was the property of one Bapuji who died issueless on 2-4-1917. His widow Radhabai died on 18-12-36. Plaintiff No. 1 is the son of Diwakarrao, brother of Bapuji. He claimed to have been adopted on 6-1-1937 by Sumitra Bai, widow of Diwakarrao. After Bapuji's death his widow remained in possession of his estate during her life time. After her death plaintiff No. 1 as nearest successor claimed to be the owner of the house in suit. The defendants are alleged to be in possession of the house in suit without any right and in spite of a deman...
Brij Bhushan Raghunandan Prasad Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1957MP106; 1957CriLJ855; MANU/MP/0050/1957
Dixit, J.1. The only question that arises in this case and which has been referred to us for decision is whether a direction made by the First Class Magistrate of Mhow asking the petitioner to give his thumb impression and specimen writing and signature for comparison is prohibited by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.2. The facts are that the Special Police Establishment of the Government of India has registered a case against the applicant before us for offences under Sections 409 and 471, I. P. C. The charge against the applicant is that on certain dates some money-orders were entrusted to him for payment to payees; and that instead of paying the amounts of the money-orders to the payees, he misappropriated the amounts and returned the money-order forms with forged thumb impressions and signatures of the payees. The accused is a postman. Soon after the arrest of the accused and during the course of investigation, an application was made by the Police before the First Class ...
Chatra Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1957MP217
Dixit, J.1. The appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Dhar on charges under Sections 452 and 302 read with Section 148, I. P. C. At the end of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant Cha-tra guilty of the offences. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 301, I. P. C. and to two years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 452 and to one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148, I. P. C.2. The case for the prosecution was, briefly, this. The appellant Chatra lived with his wife Moti-,bai in village Fiplia. A month before the occurrence Chatra and his wife Motibai came to village Padunia where Chatra's step-daughter Rukhma was living with her husband, Sonia. Chatra stayed at Rukhma's house for about ten days. He then went to Bulgara to see his cousins. He, however, returned to Padunia after a few days and took away his wife's ornaments from her possession. Ac...
State, Through Shiv Bahadur Singh Vs. Daulatsingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1957MP72
Dixit, J.1. This is an application under Section 417 (3), Cr.P.C., for leave to appeal against an order of the First Class Magistrate of Bhanpura dismissing a complaint filed by Shri R.P. Dubey, Range Forest Officer, against Daulatsingh in respect of offences under Section 26 (f) and (h) of the Madhya Bharat Forest Act, 1950, on account of the non-appearance of the Range Forest Officer on the date of hearing of the case.2. On behalf of the accused, Mr. Balwantsingh has raised the preliminary objection that the prosecution being on behalf of the State and the proposed appeal being also one on behalf of the State, it can only be filed under Section 417 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Public Prosecutor under the direction of the State, Government and that, therefore, the present application purporting to be one under Section 417 (3) for leave to appeal from the order of acquittal is incompetent.In our judgment, this preliminary objection must prevail. Section 417 (1), Cr.P.C., l...
Firm Lalchand Nathmal and ors. Vs. Firm Balaram Rameshwar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1957MP95
1. This is plaintiffs' appeal from the decree in Civil Suit No. 7-B of 1050 of the Court of the District Judge, Raigarh, dismissing their suit OR the point of limitation,2. The plaint was initially filed in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Class I, Bilaspur, on 25th November, 1947. The suit was instituted against Firm Balaram Rameshwar of Kharsia, said to be owned by (1) Balaram and (2) Rameshwar who were joined as defendants. It was alleged that the defendants were residing and carrying on business at mouza Tundri in tonsil Janjgir, district Bilaspur, This was the solitary ground on which the Court was alleged to have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The claim was based on the dealings between the plaintiffs' firm Lalehand Nathmal and the defendants' firm between 23-2-1944 and 10-12-1944,At the time the dealings began, the defendant-firm was carrying on business at Tundri within the jurisdiction of the Court. Till 17-10-1944, it was styled as 'Balaram Hameshwar', and subseq...
Beniprasad Agarwal Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP348
M. Hidayatulla, C.J. 1. This appeal is by one Beniprasad Agarwal who trades in the name and style of 'Bajoria Soap Works', at Sindi Bazar, Kharsia, in the Raigarh district. The appeal is directed against the order granting a temporary injunction in a suit filed by the respondent, Lever Brothers (India), Limited, Bombay, in an action for infringement of the registered trade mark of the respondent Company. There is also an application made for correcting the name of the respondent-Company into 'Hindustan Lever, Limited, Bombay', which is not opposed. The respondent-Company have also cross-objected and asked for the grant of a temporary injunction against certain other alleged infringements of the registered trade mark. This order shall dispose of all these matters. 2. As regards the application for the correction of the name of the respondent-Company, no objection was raised, and I allow that application.3. The facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff in the -suit. Lever Brothers ...
ishwardas Vs. Madhosingh Tomar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP27; 1958CriLJ49
ORDERNevaskar, J.1. In this reference the question involved is regarding the refusal of the Additional District Magistrate, Indore to issue process to some of the witnesses cited on behalf of the complainant.2. The facts of this case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant Fandit Ishwardas under Sections 342 and 392, I. P. C., against the Deputy Ranger of Forest, Indore, Shri Tomar. In the complaint filed by him he had mentioned the names of the witnesses whom he wanted to examine. On 7-6-1956 the complainant and one of his witness Lashkarsingh were examined. This Lashkarsingh was in the list initially filed. On that day the complainant was required to pay necessary process for calling the remaining witnesses indicated in the initial list and the case was fixed for hearing on 28-6-1956. The complainant filed process-fees in respect of five witnesses on 26-6-1956. This list included 4 new witnesses whom he wanted to examine.As the process was paid just two days before the date...
Suganchand Vs. Fulchand Gyanchand and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1957MP194
1. This appeal is filed by the defendant.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the appellant to recover a sum of Rs. 10,046-14-0 alleged to be due on account of losses sustained by him in some forward transaction of gold. It is alleged in the plaint that the forward transactions in gold are carried on under the aegis of an association known as the 'Bullion Exchange'; that the plaintiff firm is a certified broker and a member of the said association; that these transactions are negotiated through brokers who occupy the position of Pukka adtiyas and become responsible for payment of profits to either contracting party.The transactions are carried on from month to month and the Waida matures fortnightly on Sudi 15 and Badi 30 of every month. Delivery notes are given on Sudi and Badi 14 of every month and delivery is actually effected on the date of maturity. The Balan (payment) is made on Sudi and Badi 4th of every month.3. The plaintiff has then alleged that the defendant ente...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »