Madhya Pradesh Court October 1999 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.
Rajan Alias Rajendra Brahman Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2423
R.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-5-1986 in S.T. No. 3/85, passed by the Court of Shri K. K. Shrivastava, Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, whereby the appellant Rajan was convicted and sentenced as under :(i)under Section 307, I.P.C. : R. I. for 3 years.(ii) under Section 25/27 Arms Act : R.I. for two years.A co-accused Munna alias Vinod Kumar was acquitted of the charges.2. The charge found established by the trial Court was that on 23-6-84 a police party consisting of a number of police officials including PW-2 Raghunath Singh, Head Constable, PW-3 Roop Narayan, A.S.I., PW-4 Ram Narayan, Constable and a number of others and Bhawandeen and Shyamdeen were on duty for prevention of dacoity in the area of Police out post Majhgawan, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Koti, district Satna. On receiving information that there were some miscreants in a jungle in that area, this party proceeded to apprehend them. The party was duly armed with fire ...
Mangilal Gosai Vs. Prahlad Keer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC139; 2001ACJ1791
A.K. Gohil, J.1. The appellant has filed this misc. appeal against the order dated 2.4.1997 passed in M.J.C. No. 21 of 1996 by which the Tribunal has dismissed application for restoration under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code').2. The appellant had filed one Claim Case No. 51 of 1996. The appellant was prosecuting the case before the Tribunal and the case was fixed for filing of written statement on 25.6.1996. On that day the appellant could not appear and the case was dismissed in default. On 20.7.96, the appellant filed an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code for restoration on the ground that the learned senior counsel for the appellant had gone to Masoori and local counsel Mr. Patil could not appear because case was listed for filing of written statement and there was nothing to be done on behalf of the appellant on that day of 25.6.1996. The aforesaid application was supported by an affidavit of a senior counsel of Dhar as well as of ...
Suneel Kumar JaIn Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-15-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)MPHT76; 2000(2)MPLJ434
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. The petitioner who is an employee of the State Government, has filed this petition against : (i) the State of Madhya Pradesh through the Secretary, Ministry of Forests, (ii) the Conservator of Forests, Bhopal Circle, Bhopal, (iii) the Divisional Forest Officer (General) District Vidisha, (iv) Lokayukt Sanghthan of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, (v) N.S. Bhandari, Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Vidisha (presently posted as S.D.F.O. (Production)) at Mandla and (vi) C.N. Pachori, Vanpal, Forest Division, Vidisha.2. In para 3 of the petition, it is contended that the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the private respondents in tampering with the evidence and 'challan' papers of the criminal case registered by the petitioner and in helping the culprits to get them discharged, and is also aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not taking any action against the 'culprits' in the matter despite submission of representations in this behalf along with relevant docume...
Arun Kumar Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-15-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1644; 2000(2)MPLJ184
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this application preferred under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the moot question that arises for consideration is whether an application of this nature is maintainable when a Court taking cognizance on a complaint or a prosecution report in respect of non-bailable offence issues summons to the accused.2. The facts as have been unfurled are that, the State of M.P. through Forest Range Officer, North Lamta (General), Northern Forest Division, Distt. Balaghat filed a criminal complaint under Section 190(c) of the Code for offences punishable under Sections 26(1)(Ga)(Cha), 41(2)(Kha)(Ga)(Gha), 42 and 69 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 and under Rules 23 and 29 of M.P. Vanopaj Abhiyan Gaman Niyam 1961 and under Section 4 of M.P. Kast Chiran (Viniyaman) Act, 1984 as well as under Sections 379, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balaghat wherein it was...
Dhanroop and anr. Vs. Purushottamdas Purohit and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1999
Reported in: AIR2000MP118
Khan, J. 1. Appellants are aggrieved of second time summary dismissal of their F.A. No. 263/96 unsupported by any reasons. This is their second LPA on the issue. Their first LPA No. 103/97 was disposed off by us by consent order dt. 28-1-1998 requesting the First Appellate Court to re-examine the merit of the issues involved in their first appeal and to dispose It off in accordance with law. But that Court ignoring our request again summarily dismissed their first appeal by recording agreement with the trial Court without giving any reasons and by placing reliance on Order 41, Rule 11(4) of C.P.C. Therefore, all that remained to be seen was whether First Appellate Court could give a short shrift to the appeal in this manner overlooking the order of the D.B. and whether Order 41, Rule 11(4) authorised such a course? 2. The controversy arises out of the sale of suit land by appellants allegedly belonging to the temple. Respondent No. 1 filed suit No. 8-A/81 to set aside this sale which w...
Ashutosh Kumar Mishra Vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1999
Reported in: AIR2000MP188; 2000(2)MPHT237; 2000(1)MPLJ395
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashment of Annexure P-1 whereby the Board of Secondary Education. Bhopal, the sole respondent, has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for scrutiny of the answer papers in certain subjects on the ground that the said application was barred by limitation and further to command the said respondent to scrutinise the marks of the petitioner' and recheck his result.2. It is averred in the writ petition that the result of the petitioner who appeared in the examination of Class-XII from the Centre, Government Higher Secondary School,Belwa, Badgaiyan in the Distt. of Rewa was initially withheld and eventually was published on 8-7-1999. As the petitioner was dissatisfied with regard to the award of marks in Hindi, Chemistry, Physics and Higher Mathematics he applied for revaluation on 21-7-99 but the Board expressed its ina...
Brij Bhal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1999
Reported in: AIR2000MP265
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. In both these writ petitions challenge being to the award of licences in favour of respondent No. 10; one pertaining to tea, coffee, sweets, namkeen and fruit stall and the other for vegetarian and non-vegetarian refreshment room at Manikpur Railway Station, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. It is worthwhile to note here that the challenge in W.P. No. 3186/99 is on a wide spectrum whereas in W.P. No. 3281/99 the assailment relates to short-listing of the competitors, as a result of which the petitioner therein, has been thrown away at the very threshold.2. The litigation has a history. An advertisement was published on 10-11-96 inviting tenders for catering snacks and food respectively. In pursuance of the said advertisement number of applications were made by the desiring persons for grant of licences. The applications were scrutinised by the Screening Committee and after scrutiny the Screening Committee sent the matter to th...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kansram and ors.,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ405; [2000]101CompCas451(MP); 2000(2)MPLJ506
Dipak Misra, J.1. Considering different factual matrix in relation to the effect and impact of non-intimation by the owner-insured to the insurer at the time of transfer of a motor vehicle as required under Section 103A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the resultant liability of the insurance company in such a factual foundation and noticing the cleavage of opinion in Nana Bai v. Ishaque Khan [1995] ACJ 292 ; Nagindas v. Nasir Ali [1997] ACJ 1093 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shamsuddin (M.A. No. 378 of 1989) on the one hand and Sabir Hussain v. Maya Bai [1997] ACJ 1258, on the other, a Division Bench of this court in M.W. No. 446 of 1997, and other connected matters thought it appropriate that the matter required to be decided by a larger Bench. In M.A. No. 192 of 1996, another Division Bench noticing the decision of this court rendered in the case of Balwant Singh v. Jhannubai [1980] ACJ 126, and further taking note of the fact t...
Ujagar Singh Vs. State of M.P. Through P.S. Gormi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT360; 2000(1)MPLJ58
ORDERMaithli Sharan, J.1. The accused-applicant and two other accused persons, namely, Jawahar Singh and Bitti Bai are alleged to have committed the offence under Sections 498A, 302/304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code concerning the death of the wife of Jawahar Singh. Bitti Bai is the mother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Sapna Devi while this accused-applicant Ujagar Singh is her husband's brother. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused-applicant had absconded while the other two accused persons, Jawahar Singh and Bitti Bai, were tried for the aforesaid offences and they have been acquitted by the judgment of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind dated 24-10-97, in S.T. No. 186/95. A copy of the judgment has been filed for the perusal of this Court.2. Learned Panel lawyer was asked to verify the fact as to whether the State had gone in appeal against the said judgment passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge. Today, learned Panel lawyer subm...
Madanlal and Two ors. Vs. State of M.P. Through Police Station
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT358
ORDERMaithli Sharan, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the accused persons/petitioners, invoking the inherent powers of this Court. The brief facts of this petition lie in a narrow compass and may be summarised thus : The accused/petitioners were facing trial in Criminal Case No. 515 of 1995 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna, wherein the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded and the accused/petitioners were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and thereafter the arguments were heard and the case was posted for pronouncing the judgment on 16-7-1998, on which date an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed from the side of the prosecution to re-call the four witnesses viz., Pulia Bai (P.W. 1), Devilal (P.W. 2), Jasoda Bai (P.W. 3) and Rambabu (P.W. 5) for re-examination. This application was allowed by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved by the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »