Madhya Pradesh Court December 1998 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.
Ghansu S/O Kabarilal Ahir Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ613
ORDERR.P. Gupta, J.1 .The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12-4-1994 of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla, in Criminal Appeal No. 92/83, whereby the conviction of the petitioner-accused for offence under Sections 7(1), 16(l)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated milk to Food Inspector on 20-12-1981, in the area of village Manadehi, was confirmed.2. The accused/petitioner has initially been convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandla in Criminal Case No. 352/82, vide his judgment dated 23-11-1983. He was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, but the Additional Sessions Judge, modified this sentence to Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default imprisonment for two months.3. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that the revision petition must succeed on the ground that compliance of provisions of Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not...
Ghansu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2843
ORDERR.P. Gupta, J.1. The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12-4-94 of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandla, in Cr. A. No. 92/83, whereby the conviction of the petitioner-accused for offence under Sections 7(1), 16(1)(a)(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated milk to Food Inspector on 20-12-1982, in the area of village Manadehi, was confirmed.2. The accused/petitioner has initially been convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandla in Cr. Case No. 352/82, vide his judgment dated 23-11-83. He was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, but the Addl. Sessions Judge modified this sentence to Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default imprisonment for two months.3. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that the revision petition must succeed on the ground that compliance of provisions of Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not established by the prosecuti...
Dr. (Smt.) K.K. Patnayak and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4911
ORDERR.P. Gupta, J.1. Three petitioners in this revision challenge the order dated 22-1-94 of II Addl. Sessions Judge, Sidhi in S.T.No. 26/92 whereby prayer of these petitioners to discharge was declined. These petitioners along with Shyamnarayan were tried for offences Under Section 306, 498A, 201, IPC. Wife of Shyamnarayan Satyabhama received some burns on 20-7-90. She was brought to N.C.L. Hospital, Amroli where Dr. (Smt.) K.K. Patnayak was Dy. Supdt. She gave treatment to the patient and referred her to N.C.L. Hospital, Singroli the same day. She was taken to the Singroli hospital same day. At Singroli petitioners 2 and 3 Dr. Ashok Sharma and Dr. S.K. Mishra had treated her. She expired on 27-7-90. The incident occurred at 1-30 p.m. and the patient was referred to Singroli that very evening. On the death of the patient one of the doctors sent information to the police on the basis of which marg intimation was recorded and since the parents of the deceased complained of harassment c...
Bharat Construction Company Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(MP)414
ORDERB.A. IMAN, J.Appellant firm is engaged in contract of building construction. It declared its income on estimate basis as it had not maintained any account books and was assessed by respondent ITO, vide assessment order dt. 30th May, 1986. While doing so respondent also stated in the order 'penalty proceedings have also been initiated'. He, thereafter, issued fresh notice under s. 271A of IT Act on 11th Nov., 1987, proposing levy of penalty on the assessee for not maintaining account books. He eventually passed order dt. 28th Dec., 1988, imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,500 on this head. He, however, later issued second notice dt. 11th Sept., 1989 to assessee under s. 271B of the Act for its failure to have its accounts audited.2. The assessee has challenged this notice in the present petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation prescribed under s. 275(b) of un amended IT Act.The case set up is that under this provision no penalty proceedings could be commenced nor penalty or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›