Madhya Pradesh Court February 1974 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Rupsingh Devjia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ500
J.S. Verma, J.1. This appeal raises the question whether, on construction of the various provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Bal Adhiniyam, 1970 (No. 15 of 1970)(hereinafter referred to as the Bal Adhiniyam), a 'child' within the meaning of that expression as defined in the Act when charged with the offence of murder has also to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of that Act.2. The appellant Rupsingh, admittedly, aged 14 years when tried for the offence of murder was charged with having committed the murder of Mst. Balgi wife of Nakala of village Jhauli, tahsil Aliraipur, district Jhabua on 14-4-1970. The challan was filed in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Alirajpur for the said offence against the appellant on 15-5-1970,who after holding an inquiry in accordance with Section 207A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by the order dated 3-9-1970 passed under Sec-213 of the Code committed the appellant for trial by the Court of Session. The first Additional Session...
Onkar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-1974
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1200; 1973MPLJ69
S.M.N. Raina, J.1. This judgment will also govern Criminal Reference No. 15 of 1973 and Criminal Appeal No. 1006 of 1973.2. Birsingh, aged about 24 years, Onkar, aged about 22 years, and Nanhelal, aged about 17 years, were tried on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Shri Mishrilal Singhai, an Advocate of Narsimhapur, on 2-1-1973. They were further charged under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing disappearance of the evidence of the said murder. Three other accused, namely, Girani, Annilal and Buttu, were also tried on a charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing disappearance of the evidence of the said murder along with the accused mentioned above. Girani, Annilal and Buttu were acquitted by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Narsimhapur, dated 10-10-1973. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 19-10-1973 the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Birsingh and Nanhelal but convicted the accused Onkar...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ram Pratap and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ108; 1974MPLJ545
Raina, J.1. This is an application by the State Government under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution for the grant of a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of this Court dated 23-1-1974 in Criminal Revision No. 721 of 1973. A similar application has been filed by the State Government for the grant of a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of this Court dated 23-1-1974 in Criminal Revision No. 720 of 1973 which has been registered as miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 61 of 1974. Both these cases have been heard together and the order in this case will govern both.2. Non-applicants 1 to 3 in this case and non-applicant No. 1 in the connected case are forest contractors. They took on lease forest ranges of the North Forest Division of Surguja District for collection of Sal seeds. The South Forest Division was given to the Madhva Pradesh State Tribal Co-operative Development Federation Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the Fe...
Bherulal Vs. Bardichand and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-1974
Reported in: AIR1975MP99
J.S. Verma, J. 1. The petitioner Bherulal was declared elected a Panch from Ward No. 4 to Gram Panchayat Bagh at an election held on 15-5-1970. The rival candidates were respondent No. 1 Bardichand and respondent No. 2 Danmal. At the election, the petitioner secured 39 votes, which were the highest, while respondent No. 1 secured 37 votes and respondent No. 2 secured 20 votes. An election petition challenging the petitioner's election was filed by respondent No. 1 Bardichand, which has been allowed by the prescribed authority so that the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to have the order of the prescribed authority setting aside the petitioner's election quashed.2. Section 357 of the M. P. Panchayats Act, 1962 provides for an election petition presented to the prescribed authority for challenging such an election. The prescribed authority is admittedly the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No. 3. The Rules applicable for the purpose are the Madhya Pradesh P...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›