Madhya Pradesh Court May 1957 Judgments
Haji Usman Haji Mohammad Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP33; 1958CriLJ181
Samvatsar, J.1. This revision application is filed by accused Haji Usman who has been convicted of anoffence under Section 46 (a) of the Ayat Niryat Kar Vidhan, Samvat 2006 read with Madhya Bharat Government Notification No. 7 dated 14th August, 1948 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly stated as follows :2. On 2-11-1950 the petitioner despatched from his shop at Dewas 309 tins of groundnut seed oil for being exported to the then Bhopal State. The truck in which these tins were being carried was checked a little aheadof Daulatpur Custom Post in the territory of Madhya Bharat and as export of this oil from Madhya Bharat was then prohibited, the tins were seized and the accused-petitioner was prosecuted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate First Class, Sonkatch.3. The accused denied having committed any offence but the learned Magistrate found Mm guilty and sentenced him to suffer ...
Tag this Judgment!Gahru Ram Ramkumar Vs. Rambaran Thakuri and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP278; 1958CriLJ1191
ORDERT.P. Naik, J. 1. Non-applicant No. 2 Rambaran filed a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate, 1st Class, Baikenthpur, under Sections 500 and 506 (second part) of the Indian Penal Code against non-applicant No. 1 Gahruram, alleging that on 8-11-1955, Gahruram met the complainant Rambaran on the road at village Mohara and defamed him by saying that his (complainant's) wife had practised witchcraft on his fields on account of which his crops had been spoiled, that when he would get the opportunity he would kill him and that he published this defamatory imputation in the village. The trial Court acquitted the accused-non-applicant No. 1 of the offence under Section 506, I. P. C. but convicted him of the offence under Section 500 I. P. C. and sett-need him to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, has reported the case under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a recom...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsiram Dewaji Vs. Smt. Narbadabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP255; 1958CriLJ1188
ORDERT.P. Naik, J. 1. Non-applicant Narbadabai on 9-8-1855 filed an application in the Court of the Magistrate, 1st Ciass, Jabalpur, under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance from her husband Tulsiram, the applicant, inter alia on the ground that they last resided together at Jabalpur in the house of her parents for the period 30-10-1954 to 20-12-1954 and that he had neglected and refused to maintain her as his legally married wife. On 17-10-1955 the applicant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application on the grounds that he was a resident of Wardha, that he never resided with the non-applicant at Jabalpur or at any place within the jurisdiction of the Court and that even on the averments contained in the petition of the non-applicant, it cannot be said that he last resided with the non-applicant at Jabalpur within the meaning of Section 488(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The objection was overruled by the trial Court ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Haidarali
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1957MP179; 1957CriLJ1266
Hidayatullah, C.J.1. The order in this reference shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Reference No. 99 of 1956.2. These two references have been made by the City and Additional District Magistrate, Indore City, in ten criminal cases in which certain persons are being prosecuted for having sold iron and steel and iron and steel scrap at above the controlled prices fixed by the respective Controllers under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, .1946. During the course of these cases the accused raised the plea, based upon a decision of the Punjab High Court in Bhananial Gulzari Mal Ltd. v. Union of India, Criminal Writ Case No. 36-D of 1954 decided on 14th February 1955 (A), that the Control Orders were unreasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The learned Magistrate after giving his opinion that the impugned clauses of the Control Orders passed by the Central Government ''were ultra vires', referred the cases under Section 432 of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›