Madhya Pradesh Court May 2001 Judgments
Vikas and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-31-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT341; 2001(3)MPLJ13
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. In this revision preferred under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the petitioners have called in question the legal validity of the order dated 11 -5-2001 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur, District Khandwa in Sessions Trial No. 145/2000.2. The facts as have been unfurled are that Sunita, sister of the applicant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and daughter of the applicant No. 2, was married to one Pramod son of Shambha Ji. After solemnisation of the marriage, Sunita went to her matrimonial home where she was ill-treated by her husband, father-in-law and other relations as a consequence of which she committed suicide on 1-8-2000. The investigating agency registered offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 and 304B of the Indian Penat Code (in short 'the IPC') against the husband, Pramod, in-laws of the deceased and some other relations. It has been putforth in the petition that the applicant...
Tag this Judgment!Hemraj Yadav Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT342
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Heard.2. Admit.3. Call for the record of the lower Court.4. Also heard on M.Cr.P. No. 2489/2001.5. This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The appellant has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.6. Considering the nature of sentence, I am inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. He shall be released on bail of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Judge with a further stipulation that he shall appear before the said Court on 18th of October, 2001 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the said Court. The application is accordingly allowed.7. C.C. as per rules....
Tag this Judgment!Raghavendra Naik and anr. Vs. Mahavir and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-21-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC700; 2001ACJ1945
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. The appellants-claimants had filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), for the award of compensation initiating the proceedings arising out of an accident involving a motor vehicle, a Maruti car bearing registration No. DID 6538 wherein Ratna Naik aged about 10 years had met her untimely death.2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence and the materials brought on record by the various parties had determined that the present appellants, i.e., the father and mother of the deceased were entitled to an amount of Rs. 45,000 towards compensation.3. Accordingly, the aforesaid Tribunal granted an award under Section 168 of the Act, specifying that the said amount be paid by the insurer and the owner as well as the driver together with the interest awarded at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the application, i.e., 22.9.92, clarifyi...
Tag this Judgment!Tehsildar Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ165; 2001(3)MPHT161
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. With the consent of the parties, the revision is finally heard.2. This revision petition is against the order dated 27-11-2000, passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No. 256/2000, whereby the applicant/accused has been charged for the offence under Section 302 of IPC read with Sections 27 and 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act.3. The fads leading to filing this case are as under : The incident had occurred on 18-4-2000 at 8/8.30 A.M. in the morning while complainant Subedar Singh s/o Albelsingh accompanied by his brother Tchsildarsingh and sister Usha was going to the field on the tractor and when he was at some distance of his house, what he saw is that accused Tikamsingh, Prahladsingh and Ramraj came front side; accused Ramraj was armed with gun. It is stated that accused Tikamsingh and Prahladsingh filthy abused him and also threatened to kill him. Thereafter, it is alleged that accused Ramraj, with intention to kill, fired from his gun at...
Tag this Judgment!Mirchi Alias Rakesh JaIn Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT435; 2001(3)MPLJ356
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J. 1. This revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed against the order dated 17-11-2000, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katni, whereby he has refused to grant bail to the petitioner holding that he has no jurisdiction to grant bail for an offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth 'the Act'). 2. The facts of this case are as follows :-- The petitioner Mirchi alias Rakesh is accused of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections (1)(x) of the Act. A charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner bearing Crime No. 604/2000 of Police Station, Katni. There is another case, in connection with Crime No. 135/2000, registered at Police Station, Katni, for offences under Sections 294 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, in which one Onkar was involved. The petitioner was ar...
Tag this Judgment!Swaminath Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1343; 2001(3)MPHT404
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J. 1. Appellant Swaminath along with Ganpat Singh and Mohan Singh were put on trial for offence under Sections 120, 120B read with Sections 302 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. First Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal by judgment dated 30th June, 1993, passed in Sessions Trial No. 99/84, held this appellant guilty of offence under Sections 302, 120B read with Sections 302 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 and 120B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year each for offence Under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Other accused persons were also found guilty of offence under Section 120B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Aggrieved by their conviction, the preferred separate appeals. Ganpat Singh and Mohan Si...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Anshu Chopra Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT16; 2001(3)MPLJ558
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. The present litigation depicts a sad and unfortunate incident. But the picture does not remain tainted as the learned Advocate General frescoed the scene in the utmost truthful manner in spite of the contrary stand in the return and truth always ostracises all that is reprehensible and ushers in a shining glory where hope again blooms.2. Smt. Anshu Chopra, the petitioner herein, has approached this Court to call for the entire records pertaining to impounding of her vehicle bearing registration No. M.P. 20-F-5633 and that of all other similar private vehicles on the ground that such an action is not permissible in law and further to take appropriate action against the officials concerned. It has been putforththat on 18-4-2001 when the petitioner was coming back from the clinic of Dr. Ajay Saraf, a paediatrician, after availing treatment of her 31 years old child,who was suffering from allergic bronchitis and viral infection, at about 1 p.m. the respondent No. 4,...
Tag this Judgment!Engineer-in-chief, P.H.E.D. and ors. Vs. Budha Rao Magarde and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ353MP; 2002(1)MPLJ385
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J. 1. All these petitions challenge orders identical to the order dated November 27, 1999 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Labour Court and order Annexure P/7 dated February 23, 2000 passed by the Industrial Court affirming the said order Annexure P/5 in Civil Appeal No. 260/99/MPIR in the case of the employee Budha Rao Magarde in W.P. No. 3510/2000 and were, therefore, analogously heard and are being decided by this common order on the basis of the facts of W.P. No. 3510/2000 / Engineer-in-Chief, P.H.E.D. and Ors. v. Budha Rao Magarde and Ors.. The employee in each of the above cases had approached the Labour Court under Section 31(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (MPIR Act for short) for seeking classification on the post on which he had been working in the Kolar Project of the petitioner Public Health Engineering Department. It is not disputed that the employees were inducted on daily wages from 1989 onwards till 1993.2. The case of the employees befo...
Tag this Judgment!Pooran Vs. the Election Officer, Janpad Panchayat and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT477
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer whereby he has allowed the election petition filed by respondent No. 3 Ram Niwas.2. Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sirsod in the elections held in the year 1999-2000 under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Respondent No. 3 was not satisfied with counting, therefore, he has filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter, referred to as Adhiniyam'). It was contended by the election-petitioner that he has contested the elections of Gram Panchayat, Sirsod for the post of Sarpanch. Spectacle was allotted as election symbol to him. It was alleged that it was decided that the counting shall not be held in the night on 1-2-2000 and shall be held on 3-2-2000 at Sheopur College by the election officer. Later on the election-petitioner and his agent returned back to their home. After respondent No. 3 had ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rekha Agal Vs. Lalit Agal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC119
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. Appellant (petitioner has directed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.7.2000 passed by 9th Additional District Judge, Indore in Hindu Marriage Case No. 397/1998 thereby dismissing the application filed on behalf of the appellant for grant of decree of divorce against the respondent under provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act).2. On service of notice of final hearing of this appeal on the respondent and on his appearance an effort was made to reconcile between the parties. But due to difference existing between the parties, the reconciliation was not possible.3. During the pendency of this appeal on 16.4.2001, the appellant and respondent jointly filed I.A. 1366/2001 under Order 23 Rule 3, C.P.C. and Section 13(b) of the Act and prayed for grant of decree of divorce on mutual consent as contemplated under Section 13(b) of the Act. The statement of both the parties have been recorded on the aforesaid application and on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »