Madhya Pradesh Court December 2001 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.
Jitendra and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3211
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellant-Jitendra has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') for being found in unlawful possession of one kilogram of 'charas' on 12-8-1999 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to a fine of rupees one lac His mother Smt. Sheela alias Chandravati has been convicted under Section 20(b)(i) of the Act for being found in possession of one kilogram of Ganja on the same date in her house and she has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.2. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides at length the evidence on record has been carefully scrutinised in light of the points raised by them. Rajendra Pathak (P.W. 7) was the Station Officer of Kotwali Police Station, Datia on 12-8-1999. He has deposed that on that date at about 5 p.m. he received information that a man is standing with his scooter near hi...
Gangaram and ors. Vs. Ramcharan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT163
P.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the defendants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Facts essential for decision are that Ramcharan, the respondent on 3-9-97 filed a civil suit for possession of 5 acres of land out of Khasra No. 362 area 10.28 acres situated at Village Andhiyari, Tehsil Gairat-ganj under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (to be called as'Act' only). This civil suit was contested by the appellants and was dismissed by the Trial Court. The respondent filed First Appeal No. 3-A/99 before ADJ, Begumganj, District Raisen who allowed the appeal and decreed that the appellants shall deliver possession of the suit land to the respondent.2. On second appeal being filed, following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:(i) Whether in view of Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, first appeal was legally maintainable ?3. Section 6(3) of the Act reads as follows:--'No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit...
Jamnalal @ Chimman Dhimar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT229; 2002(2)MPLJ169
S.P. Khare, J. 1. Appellant Jamnalal has been convicted under Section 376, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. Notice for enhancement of sentence was given to the appellant by this Court.2. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and after scrutiny of the evidence on record this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence is not sustainable. The finding of the Trial Court is that Geetabai (P.W. 6) who is the prosecutrix in this case was more than sixteen years of age on the date of incident which took place four-months before 22-5-98. The only question which has been debated during the course of hearing of this appeal is whether the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix with her consent or without her consent The FIR has been lodged on 22-5-89. That is Ex. P-2. According to this FIR the incident of rape took place four-five months ago in the 'Dak Bungalow' of the PWD in Village C...
Harisingh and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT325; 2002(3)MPLJ168
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellants Harisingh, Surendra Singh and Sadhu Singh have been convicted under Sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to a fine of rupees one lac each.2. The prosecution case is that on 13-5-1992 at 5:30 A.M. Fiat Car No. DIA-8848 came from Village Berakhedi side on Agra-Bombay Road. It was intercepted by Arjun Singh (P. W. 11) Station Officer of Raghogarh Police Station who was there on a tip-off that the opium is being transported from that village. He was having Mohanlal (P.W. 7) Constable, Rambabu Singh (P.W. 8) ASI and Anil Kumar Singhal (P.W. 10), Sub-Inspector with him. Five persons came out from the car and took to their heels on seeing the police. They were chased by the police party. Accused Harisingh was nabbed on the spot but others ran away. On interrogation of Harisingh it was disclosed by him that two of them were Suren...
Anil @ Gwal Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT161
N.S. Azad, J. 1. Arguments heard.2. A perusal of order dated 16th July, 2001, passed by the Section Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, discloses that this petitioner was admitted to anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 399/2001 of P.S. Garha, pertaining to offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. It is also noted on perusal of order sheet dated 6th September, 2001, the certified copy, which is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the police report in connection with aforesaid Crime No. 399/2001 was submitted by Police Station, Garha, Dist. Jabalpur, on 6th September, 2001 in the Court of J.M.F.C., Jabalpur for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and this petitioner was recorded as absent. The learned J.M.F.C. ordered issuance of non-bailable warrants against this petitioner and concluded the order-sheet without fixing the date of hearing. After some time, on the same date, Shri R.K. Dixit, Advocate, submitted his memo and appeared on behalf of this p...
Kismati Bai and ors. Vs. Ganpati Vanaspati
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2164; 2002(1)MPHT158; 2002(2)MPLJ134
ORDERN.S. Azad, J. 1. By order dated 16th November, 2000, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal allowed the petitioners application registered as MJC No. 131/98, moved under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of maintenance. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, these petitioners challenged the same in Criminal Revision No. 432/2000, which was disposed of by the Special Judge, CBI and Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal on 22nd March, 2001. The Revisional Court amended the order of the J.M.F.C. on the point of date from which the order of maintenance was to be effectuated. The learned J.M.F.C. granted maintenance since the date of filing of the petition, but the Revisional Court allowed the same from the date of order Le., 16th of November, 2000. 3. It is submitted by Shri Pathak, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the learned J.M.F.C. has assigned reasons for making the order effective since the date of application and hence, without recording ...
Bhupendra Singh Rana and ors. Vs. Ghanshyam Garg and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT306; 2002(1)MPLJ306
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants/applicants as well as the learned counsel representing the plaintiffs/respondents who has put in appearance at this stage. 2. Perused the record.3. The tenant/defendant has approached this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC, feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Trial Court allowing an amendment in the plaint. 4. It may be noticed that Ghanshyam Garg had filed a suit giving rise to this revision for eviction of his tenants from the premises in dispute, recovery of the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The suit was based on the grounds envisaged under Sections 12 (1) (a) and (h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short). 5. The ground contemplated under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act is to the effect that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable...
Sunil Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT82
ORDERN.S. Azad, J.1. Arguments heard.2. On 18th September, 2001, Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, framedcharge against this petitioner for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC giving rise to this revision.3. As per the prosecution case, the deceased Malti Bai became pregnant by this petitioner, who promised to marry her. Thereafter, when Malti Bai came to know that this petitioner is intending to marry with another girl, she informed this petitioner about the conception and also alarmed him that in case the petitioner does not marry her, she would commit suicide. On this petitioner's telling her to die, Malti Bai is stated to have consumed some poisonous substance and committed suicide. It is submitted by Shri Naik that in case on account of casual conservation and asking some one to die. If somebody commits suicide, the offence committed under Section 306, IPC can not be said to have been made out. In support of his argument, he has drawn Court's attention in the case of Swami ...
Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. Swaroop Chand JaIn and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2462; 2002(2)MPLJ322
ORDERR.B. Dixit, J.1. This order shall also govern disposal of Cr. Revision Nos. 105/01, 106/ 01, 107/01, 108/01 and 110/2001 as all the revisions have been preferred against same order and also on common question of facts and law.2. Various complaints leading to aforesaid revisions were filed against respondentSwaroop Chand Jain and others under Sections 138 and 141 of Negotiable Instruments Actstating therein that M/s. S.K.G. Selvex is a company registered under Companies Act andSwaroop Chand Jain is its Director, who is responsible for its act. This company hadpurchased yellow Soyabean from the complainant, for which certain amount of cheque wasissued in favour of complainant by another co-accused Jitendera Kumar Jain. However, thesecheques were dishonoured, for which statutory notices as required under Sub-clause (c) ofSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were served and then the complaints werefiled. 3. The respondent Swaroop Chand moved two applications under Sections 24...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›