Madhya Pradesh Court January 1999 Judgments
State of M.P. Vs. Virendra Singh Parihar, Advocate
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ236
ORDERR.P. Gupta, J.1. This reference under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been made by Shri U.C. Mishra, J.M.I.C. Sidhi against Shri Virendra Singh Parihar, Advocate, Sidhi insofar as he attempted to intimidate Shri M.C. Soni, J.M.I.C., Sidhi by filing criminal complaint against him for alleged offences committed by Shri Soni punishable under Sections 217/219 and 166, Indian Penal Code. Section 166 provides punishment against public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person. Section 217 provides punishment against public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture. Section 219, Indian Penal Code provides punishment against public servant corruptly making report contrary to law in judicial proceedings.2. The complaint dated 10-10-1996 filed by the contemner against Shri Soni and co-accused Abhiramsingh Tiwari S.D.P.O. was that a private complaint filed by this contemner against one N.K. S...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Virendra Singh Parihar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2438
R.P. Gupta, J. 1. This reference Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been made by Shri U. C. Mishra, J.M.I.C. Sidhi against Shri Virendra Singh Parihar, Advocate, Sidhi in so far as he attempted to intimidate Shri M.C. Soni, J.M.I.C, Sidhi by filing criminal complaint against him for alleged offences committed by Shri Soni punishable Under Section 217/219 and 166. IPC. Section 166 provides punishment against public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person. Section 217 provides punishment against public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture. Section 219. IPC provides punishment against public servant corruptly making report contrary to law in judicial proceedings.2. The complaint dated 10-10-96 filed by the contemner against Shri Soni and co-accused Abhiramsingh Tiwari S.D.P.O. was that a private complaint filed by this contemner against One N. K, Shrivastava for various offences ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Singh and Etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2807
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. In both the writ petitions, relief sought for by the petitioners is one and the same and as the same is based on identical questions of law with little variation on facts, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. In both the writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India each of the petitioners pray for quashing of the order dated 23-9-1998 passed by his Excellency the Governor of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'Governor') granting sanction to prosecute them under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are that the Indore Improvement Trust, a body constituted under the M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act 1960, proposed Scheme No. 54 for the town of Indore and by Notification dated 12-7-1963 invited objection in regard thereto. In Scheme No. 54 besides other la...
Tag this Judgment!Dhaniram and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2221
S.P. Khare, J.1. The five appellants have been convicted under Sections 148 and 307/149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and five years respectively.2. The prosecution case is that there was a dispute between Brijlal (P.W. 1) and the accused persons regarding the use of water from a tank for irrigation purposes. On 8-12-1986 Brijlal (P.W. 1) and his brother Bhaulal (P.W. 3) were working in their field in village Sawargaon with their family members. At about 3 p.m. Pustkalabai (P.W. 5) daughter of Brijlal (P.W. 1) went to take some drinking water from a nearby well and came back shouting that she has been assaulted by accused-Dhaniram by a lathi. All the five accused persons also came chasing her. They were armed with barchi, axe and lathi. They started causing injuries to Brijlal (P.W. 1). He sustained eight injuries. Bhaulal (P.W. 3) was also attacked by them and he received eleven injuries. They became unconscious on the spot. Mungabai, wife of B...
Tag this Judgment!Shantibai @ Bhatoribai Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC386
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellant Shantibai has been convicted under Section 306, Indian Penal Code for abetting the commission of suicide by her daughter-in-law and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.2. Deceased Meenadevi was married to Rajkumar, son of the appellant on 19.4.1986, and she committed suicide by burning herself on 25.5.1986, that is, within 35 days of her marriage.3. The prosecution case is that the accused repeatedly taunted Meenadevi for bringing inferior quality of sarees from her mother's house and uttered that she was incompetent to do house- hold work and she and her mother were tonahi and they brought bad luck for her son Rajkumar who started suffering from kidney disease. Meenadevi made dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate and the Doctor. She had complained to her mother and brother also.4. The accused pleaded not guilty. The Trial Court after an exhaustive and painstaking analysis of the evidence on record held that the appellant abetted th...
Tag this Judgment!Ruby Yadav and ors. Vs. Rajendra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ461; 1999(1)MPLJ29
Dipak Misra, J.1. In this appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the claimants-appellants have called in question the legal validity of the award dated 16.5.1997 passed by the First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Murwara, Distt. Katni.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 18.3.1994 deceased Dayashankar Yadav was travelling on scooter bearing registration No. CIQ 3796 on National Highway No. 7 and proceeding towards Maihar when he reached at the Check Post of Forest Department near village Kuthla, the offending truck bearing registration No. UP-32A-0611, being rashly and negligently driven by the respondent No. 1, dashed against the scooter, as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries on his head, and eventually succumbed to the same. The widow of the deceased along with parents filed aforesaid claim petition contending, inter alia, that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 per month as he was ...
Tag this Judgment!Miyanlal S/O Golan Das Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2227
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In these three appeals from jail, the accused-appellants have called the question the defensibility of the judgment passed in S.T. No. 231/96 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara. The accused-Miyanlal and Faggu have been found guilty for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 363, I.P.C.; for five years under Section 366, IPC; and for a period often years for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g), IPC and to a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. There is a direction for concurrent running of sentences. The accused-appellant Pyarelal has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 363, IPC and five years for the offence punishable under Section 366, IPC with a st...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahaveer Drilling Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR733(MP)
Heard learned counsel for parties. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue and the following questions of law have been framed for calling for the statement of the case :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) cancelling the assessing officer's order under section 154 withdrawing investment allowance in respect of drilling machines even though the assessing officer's action in rejecting such claim of investment allowance was in conformity with the ratio of a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. (1995) 204 ITR 412 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding cancellation of the rectification order passed by the assessing officer on 19-10-1992, despite the decis...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jiwaji Rao Sugar Company Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR611(MP)
B.A. Khan, J. 1. The Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question, said to be a question of law arising out of its order dated June 12, 1995, for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that no penalty for late filing of a return under Section 9 of the Surtax Act, 1964, can be levied if the return, though belated, is filed before the completion of assessment ?'2. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee was to file the return for the assessment year 1975-74 under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, by September 30, 1973, the company, however, filed the return on December 22, 1977. The assessment was, however, completed on March 27, 1992. Since the return was filed by the assessee beyond the prescribed time, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 9(1) of the Act and put the company on showcause notice. The company replied to the notice c...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Vs. State and M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-1999
Reported in: I(1999)DMC638
Shambhoo Singh, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused against the judgment and order dated 26.8.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora, in S.T. No. 178/93 whereby he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, two years further R.I.2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that the deceased widow Anandibai was living in Iqubal Ganj, Jaora, in her parents house with her daughters Madhubala (PW 4) aged about 18 years and Leelawati. The deceased's cousin Goverdhanlal (PW 1) and his wife Geetabai (PW 2) were living in the adjacent house. The deceased Anandi Bai was having illicit connection with the appellant. He wanted to re-marry with her and always demanded money from her for liquor. On the date of incident i.e. 13.8.1993 the parents of the deceased had gone out and she was all alone in the house. The appellant came there at 4-5 p.m. and demanded money from her for ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »