Madhya Pradesh Court April 1975 Judgments
Ghisulal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-1975
Reported in: 1977CriLJ88
U.N. Bhachawat, J.1. The appellant was tried by the Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur for an offence under Section 394, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1973, who vide his judgment dated the 30th April, 1973, has convicted the appellant for the charges under Section 394 read with Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years.2. In the light of the view that I am taking of the matter on a preliminary question relating to the validity of the trial, it is not necessary to mention the facts of the case, which would have been necessary for deciding the appeal on merits.3. The appellant was committed to the Court of Session by the Magistrate First Class, Ranker, on a charge under Section 394, Indian Penal Code, with additional charge under Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code, stating that the appellant was previously convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. On being committ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Prakash Chandra Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1975
Reported in: AIR1976MP50
Singh, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner, Dr. Prakash Chandra Tiwari, prays for issuance of a writ quashing a Circular issued by Drug Inspector, Jagdalpur, impleaded as respondent No. 4 to this petition.2. The petitioner is a registered practioner under the Madhya Pradesh Homoeopathic and Biochemic Practitioners Act, 1951, The petitioner passed the diploma in Homoeopathy and Biochemistry in the examination held in the year 1971, by the Board of Homoeopathic and Biochemic Systems of Medicine, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner has got his clinic at Jagdalpur. On 26th June 1973 the Drugs Inspector, Jagdalpur, wrote to M/s. Raj Medical Stores, a Chemist of Jagdalpur, intimating that the petitioner is not a registered medical practitioner under Rule 2 (ee) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, and requesting not to dispense allopathic drugs on the prescription of the petitioner. It is this letter or circular that the petitioner challenges by this...
Tag this Judgment!T.C. Sharma Vs. I.G. of Prisons and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1975
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ444MP
ORDERG.P. Singh, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges an order dated 1lth October, 1974 passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, dismissing the petitioner from service.2. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was in service of the Government of Madhya Pradesh as a Deputy Jailor. He was incharge Jailor of Alirajpur jail. On 1st June, 1972, twenty six prisoners were able to make good their escape from the jail between 12 noon and 1 p.m.. There was a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Three charges were levelled against him in that enquiry. The first charge was that there was failure to discharge his duties as incharge Jailor including lack of supervision leading to laxity in observance of Security Rule. The second charge was that the petitioner never checked and verified that the gates of the jail ware locked in accordance with the Rules. The third charge was that the petitioner sent Guard Jairam, who was on duty at the gate, ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shantilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ256
J.S. Verma, J.1. The applicability of Section 438 of Criminal P.C. 1973 for granting anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest for a contravention of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 or the orders made thereunder, is the main question for our decision. The learned Single Judge before whom the revision against grant of anticipatory bail to such a persop first came up for hearing has formulated certain questions for decision by a larger bench which are required to be decided by us. These questions are as follows:(i) Whether Section 438 of Criminal P.C. 1973 can be invoked for prosecutions under the Defence of India Rules by a person only when he is under custody.(ii) Whether the words 'shall, if in entity' in Rule 184 of the Defence of India Rules 1971 would prevent the Court no apply Section 438 of the Criminal P.C. 1973 to cases of persons apprehending arrest.(iii) Whether the Notification No. F. 40 (e)-3(l)-73-X-l dated the 14th November, 1973 is in accordance with law.(iv) Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmidas Patel Vs. the Indore Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-1975
Reported in: AIR1975MP223
Singh, J. 1. The petitioner by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenges the validity of Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Nirashriton Ki Sahayata Adhiniyam (Act 12 of 1970), hereinafter referred to as the Act, which authorises a local authority to levy a cess on lands and buildings within its local area. The petitioner also challenges the imposition and assessment of the cess and the bills issued to him for payment of tax on various grounds, An earlier challenge to the Act was negatived by this Court in Bhagwandas v. State of M. P., 1972 MPLJ 568 = (AIR 1972 Madh Pra 95). Grounds of challenge covered by that decision have not been repeated before us. 2. The petitioner is the owner of house No. 97, situated within the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Indore. The In-dore Corporation was superseded by the State Government on 10th July 1970 and since then the Administrator appointed by the State Government carries on the duties of the Corporation. The Admin...
Tag this Judgment!Banshi Vs. Goverdhan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-1975
Reported in: AIR1976MP125
S.M.N. Raina, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs 1,090/- as hire charges of a cycle,2. The plaintiff rung a shop known as 'Durga Cycle Store at Pandariya, teh-sil Mungali, district Bilaspur. On 4-4-1961, the defendant took a cycle on hire from the plaintiff agreeing to pay hire charges at the rate of Re. 1/- per day.The cycle was to be returned to the plaintiff by 27-7-1961. As the defendant failed to return the cycle, the plaintiff obtained a decree for Rs. 90/- on account of hirecharges in the Nyaya Panchayat.3. The case of the plaintiff is that after the decision of the Nyaya Panchayat the defendant neither returned the cycle nor paid the hire charges to the plaintiff. On 1-4-1962, the plaintiff asked the defendant to pay the decretal amount and the hire charges. The defendant promised to pay the whole amount and agreed to keep the cycle with him on hire at the rate of Re. 1/- per day. As the defendant did not return the c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›