Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Udhabdas and Etc. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ228
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. Both the revision Nos. 82/92 and 83/92 have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order as common question of law is involved in both the revisions.2. Food Inspector, Ujjain, has filed separate complaints against the applicants herein alleging commission of offence Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the 'Act') for allegedly selling adulterated Ice. The learned trial Magistrate by his orders dated 10-4-1990 passed in Criminal Cases Nos. 3829/90 and 4042/90 discharged the applicants of the said charge holding that Ice is not 'Food' within the meaning of Clause V of Section 2 of the Act. However, in revision, the Add). Sessions Judge, Ujjain set aside the orders of the Magistrate and directed for framing of charge Under Section 7/16 of the Act against the applicants, who have therefore, come up in revision before this Court.3. The moot question requiring determination is whether Ice in its original...
Budhu Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: I(1999)DMC196
Rajeev Gupta, J.1. Appellant Budhu has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC), with sentence of imprisonment for life, vide judgment dated 30.9.1988, passed by Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Sessions Trial No. 30/1988.2. The factual matrix of the case, as disclosed in the charge-sheet, is that Mst. Kandi Bai (since deceased) was the wife of accused Budhu. On 1.5.1987, accused Budhu, along with his wife deceased Kandi Bai, had gone to their field for doing agricultural operations. In the evening, while coming back to their house, Kandi Bai, in a complaining tone, asked accused Budhu as to why he used to loiter late in the night. The accused felt offended and asked his wife Kandi Bai, as to whether she was suspecting his illicit relationship with someone. During the ensuing altercation, accused Budhu is said to have assaulted his wife Kandi Bai by means of 'bahanga' (a wooden stick). It appears that one or two blows unfor...
Ramveer Sharma Vs. Smt. Neelam Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: AIR1998MP283
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard Shri S.P.P. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant.The defendant/respondent has put in appearance in this case at this stage, and Shri T. C. Bansal, learned counsel has filed the vakalatnama on her behalf. Let this vakalatnama be taken on record. Perused the record. The plaintiff/appellant feels aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court rejecting his application seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from marrying any other person during the pendency of the suit. 2. The materials brought on record indicate that the plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 0 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the month of October, 1997, asserting that he had married the defendant/ respondent according to the Hindu religion on 16-2-1997, and both of them had signed a declaration before the Notary Public, on 21-4-1997, declaring that they were husband a...
Rajkumar Balram Patel Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)MPLJ530
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') the husband-petitioner has assailed the order dated 18-12-1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anuppur in Criminal Case No. 493/% whereby he has refused to grant permission for compounding of the offence punishable Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC).2. The essential facts giving rise to the present petition are that on the basis of an FIR lodged by the wife of the Petitioner the criminal law was set in motion which ultimately gave rise to Criminal Case No. 493/96 for an offence punishable Under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Anuppur. After filing of the charge sheet in the Court, the Petitioner and his wife reached an amicable settlement and the misunderstanding between them came to end. They started leading a normal conjugal life. Because...
Rajkumar Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4518
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') the husband-petitioner has assailed the order dated 18-12-97 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anuppur in Criminal Case No. 493/96 whereby he has refused to grant permission for compounding of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC').2. The essential facts giving rise to the present petition are that on the basis of an FIR lodged by the wife of the petitioner the criminal law was set in motion which ultimately gave rise to Criminal Case No. 493/96 for an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Anuppur. After filing of the charge-sheet in the Court, the petitioner and his wife reached an amicable settlement and the misunderstanding between them came to end. They started leading a normal conjugal life. Because of this chang...
B. Choudhry and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR284(MP)
D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. By means of this petition, the petitioners who are 232 in number have come to this court, seeking relief for grant of a declaration that the breach of rest allowance and the torch cell allowance cannot be subjected to income-tax to the extent referred to in the notifications dated July 1, 1992 (annexure P-2 to the petition), and dated July 7, 1995 (annexure P-3 to the petition), and for directing respondents Nos. 1 to 5 for not deducting the income-tax at source from the amounts of torch cell allowance and the breach of rest allowance as provided in Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri B.L. Nema, and learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 4, Shri S.K. Mukherjee, and learned counsel for respondent No. 5, Shri V.K. Tankha.3. The case of the petitioner, as is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the petitioners who, while on rest, when called on duty, a...
Smt. Majula Modi Vs. Yogendra Kumar Modi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: II(1998)DMC616
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. The applicant has filed this application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. for transfer of M.J.C. No. 7/93 (Smt. Manjula Modi v. Yogendra Kumar Modi) arising out of M.J.C. No. 15 /92 (Yogendra v. Manjula) decided on 2.4.1993 and also for the transfer of the Civil Suit No. 21-A/92 from the Court of Second Additional Distt. Judge, Khargone to the Competent Court of Additional Distt. Judge at Bhopal.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that applicant and the non-applicant are husband and wife and out of the married life one son Vishwas was born to them who is minor and living with the applicantat Bhopal. Due to the differences between the parties the applicant and the non-applicant started living separately. On 17.11.1992 a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the applicant in the Court of IIIrd Additional Distt. Judge, Bhopal. The said case was registered as Civil Suit No. 224-A/92 and ex-parte decree of divorce was passed on 24...
Narmadaprasad Pandey and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: II(1999)DMC353
N.K. Jain, J.1. This revision under Sections 397/401, Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 8.1.1998 of the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhar, passed in S.T. No. 239/97 allowing application filed under Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code by the complainant respondent No. 4 and directed the applicants to stand trial together with two other accused respondents No. 2 and 3, for offence under Section 304B, r/w Section 34, Indian Penal Code.2. A married woman Sangitabai died on 13.4.1997 of burn injuries within 7 years of her marriage. Police Dhar after conducting inquest under Section 174, Criminal Procedure Code registered a Crime under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code and after usual investigation charge-sheeted respondent No. 2 Yogendra the husband of the deceased and his older brother Ashok the respondent No. 3. They stand trial on the charge under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge recorded ev...
Badrilal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(62)ECC614
J.G. Chitre J.1. The petitioner challenges the detention Order FN-801/A-5/91 dt. 7.5.97 passed by Resp. No. 1 under Section 3(1) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in N. D. P. S. Act 1988 (hereinafter called as PIT NDPS Act for convenience).2. Few facts need to be mentioned for unfolding the matter. It is alleged by the prosecution that 29 Kgs. of opium was seized from the field belonging to and in possession of the petitioner by the raiding party under the employment of the respondents more particularly under control of C.B.N. Neemuch. The petitioner was prosceuted and when he was in custody, an order was passed against him for his detention which has been mentioned above.3. It appears from the record and the submissions that during the course of investigation of the said crime, the petitioner gave a statement which was recorded by the investigating agency in view of provisions of Section 67 of NDPS Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act for convenience).4. Shri AH Khan, counsel ...
B. Choudhary and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(MP)247
ORDERD. P. S. CHA UHAN, J.BY means of this petition, the petitioners who are 232 in number have come to this Court, seeking relief for grant of a declaration that the breach of the rest allowance and the torch cell allowance cannot be subjected to income-tax to the extent referred to in the Notifications dt. 1st July, 1992 (Annexure P-2 to the petition) and dt. 7th July, 1995 (Annexure P-3 to the petition) and for directing the respondents No. 1 to 5 for not deducting the income-tax at source from the amounts of torch cell allowance and the breach of rest allowance as provided in s. 10(14) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri B1. Nerna and the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 Shri S.K. Mukhurjee and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, Shri V.K. Tankha.3. The case of the petitioner, as is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the petitioners who, while on rest, when cal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »