Madhya Pradesh Court July 2002 Judgments
Rekhlal and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT499
Ajit Singh, J.1. Appellants Rekhlal and Kangli, the accused persons in this case, have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by Sessions Judge, Balaghat, vide judgment dated 12-12-89 in Sessions Trial No. 114/89 for causing the death of Jungli, aged about 48 years, the deceased in this case. Appellants have been found guilty of causing fatal injuries on the deceased by means of a 'lathi' in the intervening night of 11/12-7-89 in their house situated at Village Budi, District Balaghat.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :--Both the appellants, the deceased Jungli and the material witnesses belong to Village Budi, within the limit of Kiranapur Police Station in Balaghat District. Deceased Jungli was father of Rekhlal (appellant No. 1) and real brother of Kangli (appellant No. 2). Since the wife of Jungli had desertedhim about 8/9 years ago, he used to live with Rekhlal (appellant No. 1). Wi...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Kumar Goushalawale and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT514; 2003(3)MPLJ453
ORDERA.K. Mishra, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by an order refusing to withdraw from the acquisition of the land which was acquired way back in the year 1988. The order Annexure P-27 has been passed on 7-7-1999 by State Government refusing to withdraw from the acquisition of the land on the ground that possession was taken on 16-9-92 and handed over to M.P. Housing Board. Mutation of M.P. Housing Board has also taken place. Thus, it has been held that it is not possible to denotify the land and withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Case of the petitioner is that the land in question falls outside zoning plan though the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1988 invoking the urgency clause but houses have not been constructed so far by M.P. Housing Board and the land in question is no more required by them. It is also the submission that order (P-27) has been pas...
Tag this Judgment!Shanker Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: AIR2003MP46; 2002(4)MPHT522
ORDERRajendra Menon, J. 1. The petitioner by this petition has challenged the action of the respondents in proposing to recover the sum of Rs. 1,23,000.00 from him.2. The petitioner on the basis of an advertisements for auction published in accordance with Rule 37 of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Minerals Rules, 1961 (hereinafter known as 'Rules of 1961') submitted his bid for grant of quarry lease of flag- stones in survey No. 1814 of Village Jakhoda, Tehsil Ghatigaon District Gwalior. Auction was held on 15-2-1988 and as the petitioner was the highest bidder his bid for Rs. 61,000.00 per annum was accepted. As per terms and conditions of the tender, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 18,300.00 as security.3. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter he made repeated demands for supply of quarry map in terms of the Mining and Minerals Concession Rules of 1961 but quarry map was not made available to him. It is submitted by the petitioner that thereafter he went to the spot and fo...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Lime Works Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT134; 2003(1)MPLJ99
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner is challenging the order dated 27-8-98 passed by Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests refusing to give no objection certificate under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 1.33 hectare of reserved forest land for renewal of Dolomite and Soap Stone Mining lease. The permission has been refused as area is situated near Bheraghat which is within the reserved forest area and on consideration of facts and circumstances, the Govt. of India has taken the decision. The petitioner was having the lease for the area in question which expired in the year 1988; Central Government had made an enquiry from the State Government regarding the area in question and also whether mining department of the State was ready to grant renewal.2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the State Government has recommended the case for grant of permission under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; the order passed by the Govt. of I...
Tag this Judgment!Susheel Kumar Seth Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT131; 2003(1)MPLJ251
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is working as a Foreman in the respondent-University and it is a case of the petitioner that he is a foreman performing technical job, whereas by resolution Annexure P-7 the University had resolved to give higher pay scale and benefit of increments to other technical employees like Artist-cum-photographer and Museum Keeper, etc., who are holding junior post and the same benefit is not being granted to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the post of Foreman is in the scale of 280-480 which is above the scale of post of Museum Keeper and Artist-cum-photographer, who come in the grade of 246-460.2. The Executive Council in its meeting held on 19-6-1998 has resolved to upgrade by 5 steps pay of Artist-cum-photographer and Museum-cum-Harvarium Keeper, whereas the same benefit is being denied to the petitioner. The petitioner's claim was recommended by the competent authorities of the Unive...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Babu and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT28
P.C. Agrawal, J.1. Shyam Babu (A-1) is convicted under Sections 333 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('Code' for short) and other appellants are convicted under Sections 333/34 and 325/34 of the Code. They have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo R.I. for one month on each count.2. As per prosecution Brijmohan (P.W. 2) is posted as E.D.N.C. in Post Office, Ramnagar. He carries the post bag from post office to load the same to bus and distributes the letters and other postal articles. On dispute of land, some civil litigation was pending between him and the appellants in which he was successful in the Court of Civil Judge but on appeal, appellants were successful. Anyhow, on 16-11-90, at about 7 A.M. when Brijmohan (P.W. 2) was going by bicycle with a post bag to Bhaura Chauraha, he was surrounded by all the appellants, was abused and belabored. Shyam Babu...
Tag this Judgment!Hajrat Singh and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT319
P.C. Agarwal, J.1. A.S.J., Basoda in S.T. No. 149/90 (State of M.P. v. Chatro Bai and two others) on 16-7-97 found both the appellants guilty under Sections 307/34 and 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('Code' for short) and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 4 years on both counts. Parvat Singh (A-2) was further held guilty under Section 324 of the Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Period of detention was set off in such sentences.2. Admittedly Amol Singh (P.W. 2) was real brother of Kadori (since deceased). Chatro Bai (acquitted co-accused) was wife of Karodi while both appellants are sons of Kadori. Between brothers there was enmity due to dispute of possession of land. On 7-6-89 at 5 A.M., late Kadori with both the appellants, his sons and wife Smt. Chatro Bai ascended in first floor of Amol Singh (P.W. 2), broke open the door and Hajrat Singh (A-1) with Farsa and Parvat Singh (A-2) with Axe badly belabored Amol Singh (P.W. 2)...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT9
ORDERUma Nath Singh, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the order of learned Trial Judge annexed with the revision.2. The main grievance of Mr. Sharma is that the applicant, at no stage of the trial, had given any authority to Advocate Mr. Kaji to defend his case and Mr. Kaji on his own submitted a bail application on behalf of the applicant and also examined certain witnesses. Mr. Sharma further submits that though Mr. Kaji was engaged by the father of the applicant who is also a co-accused in the instant case of murder, the applicant has no confidence in the Counsel and the applicant has been living separately from his father for quite some time. Under the circumstances, the applicant filed an application under Section 311, Cr.PC before the Trial Court to summon the witnesses for their re-examination by a Counsel of his choice which has been rejected by the impugned order of the Trial Court. On the other hand, Ms. Alka Pandya, appearing for the State, vehemently oppos...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Bahadur @ Bahudar Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT167
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This criminal revision has been directed against the judgment dated 3-7-2002 rendered by ASJ, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 231/2002 affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Case No. 1507/2002 by order dated 20-5-2002, thereby convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentencing him RI for one year.2. The brief facts lie in a narrow compass that on 16th January, 1995, SPS Chouhan (P. W. 4) during his bit visit to Chhapan Shops area, the applicant was found threatening the public on the point of revolver. He was also not having any licence for possessing the revolver. As such he was arrested under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity 'the Code'). On the personal search of the applicant, three live cartridges were recovered from his packet of his trousers. The revolver along with thcsaid cartridges was seized on the spot and the appl...
Tag this Judgment!Ku. Renu Yadav Vs. Madhusudan Elawadi and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT437
ORDERUma Nath Singh, J.1. This is a criminal revision against the order of discharge dated 26-2-2002, whereby the learned Special Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No. 67/2002 has recorded discharge of the non-applicant No. 1 from an offence under Section 376, IPC. Shri Datt appearing for the prosecutrix submits that, prima facie, there are sufficient materials on record to proceed against the non-applicant No. 1, under Section 376 in as much as in her statement under Section 161, Cr.PC the prosecutrix has mentioned that the applicant visited her college and impressed upon her to act as a model in his advertisements; and that the non-applicant No. 1 misrepresented that he is a bachelor which she believed in and consequently, succumbed to his lust. The applicant had sexual intercourse with non-applicant under mis-conception of facts that he was a bachelor and that he would be true to his promise and marry her. Thus, the applicant's consent was not free from mis-conception and that is why...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »