Madhya Pradesh Court October 2003 Judgments
Pappu Alias Moochh Alias Anees Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT93; 2003(4)MPLJ590
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellant Pappu alias Moochh alias Anees 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') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for being found in unlawful possession of 100 grams of Charas,2. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant at the time of hearing of this appeal. The learned Counsel for the State has been heard. The appeal has to be decided on merits as per decision of the Supreme Court in Bani Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1996 SC 2439.3. After scrutinising the evidence on record this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence is well founded. V.D. Mishra (P.W. 8) is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and he was the investigating officer in this case. He has deposed that on 14-4-2000 he received the information that accused Pappu alias Moochh alias Anees is in possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Prasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT362; 2004(1)MPLJ572
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J. 1. The learned Single Judge has referred for opinion, on the following question :--'Whether the complainant namely, Hardayal Dubey, could act as Food Inspector in the local area where the accused was transacting business in the absence of specific notification assigning the local area by the State Government ?'2. The aforesaid question has been referred to us when before the learned Single Judge it was contended that the Food Inspector could not have set the criminal law in motion as he was not so authorised by the State Government. The Food Inspector was exercising the power purported to be one under Section 9(1) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act'). It is urged that the said person was not assigned any specific local area by the State Government and, therefore, he had no authority to act as Food Inspector in that area. On raising the aforesaid contention, the learned Single Judge has referred the question as stated hereinabove.3. To understand ...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Narayan Pandey and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT46
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. As common questions are involved in all these three petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.1. In W.P. No. 2315/2003, petitioner Satya Narayan Pandey who was working as Head Constable in Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior has been removed from service vide order dated 16th July, 2003 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. It is averred in the order that two Constables namely Rakesh Mishra petitioner in W.P. No. 2316/03 and Mahesh Kaurav petitioner in W.P. No. 2339/03 were transferred. In compliance to the order of transfer, these Constables were relieved in the afternoon of 13th of July, 2003 by Incharge Station House Officer, Gole Ka Mandir. Entry in this regard has made in Rojnamcha at Sr. No. 502. However, these Constables were not interested to go on transfer, they became annoyed and after having knowledge of their relieving, they abused the Incharge SHO on 13th July, 2003. It is stated that the Incharge SHO ...
Tag this Judgment!Rasool Khan and anr. Vs. Jagdish Singh Sikarwar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: I(2005)ACC464
S.S. Jha, J.1. This appeal is filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation. Deceased Rahees Khan was aged about 19 years and was unmarried. He died in an accident on 19th June, 1995 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle No. M.P. 07H 3550. Claimants submitted that income of the deceased was Rs. 100/- per day i.e., Rs. 3,000/- per month. Evidence to that effect is led by claimants. A.W. -1 Kallo Bai has deposed that deceased was involved in denting and painting of the vehicle and was earning Rs. 100/- per day and on first day of every month he was getting Rs. 3,000/- towards the salary. This witness has been cross-examined and in the cross-examination there was no question regarding the income of the deceased. Similarly, A.W. 2 Gulab Khan has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. A.W. 3 has also stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month.2. Claims Tribunal has determined the income by holding that the deceased used to earn twe...
Tag this Judgment!Niyaz and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT91; 2003(4)MPLJ30
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellants Niyaz and Umashanker have been convicted under Sections 452 and 324, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count and to a fine of Rs. 250/- for the former offence.2. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides and on scrutiny of the evidence on record this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offence is not sustainable. Complainant Hasim Ali (P.W. 4), who is said to be the victim of the offence, has himself turned hostile. In examination-in-chief he states that accused Niyaz caused injury to him with a sword but in cross-examination he disowns it and says that he could not identify the person who attacked him. At this stage he was declared hostile and to the Court question he gives the reply: 'I had not seen the person who attacked'. So far as accused Umashanker is concerned even in the examination-in-chief he does not say that this accused did any overt act or he was armed. In the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Maheshwari Proteins Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC487; (2004)1CompLJ479(MP); [2004]52SCL339(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. Heard on I.A. No. 1957 of 2003.2. This is an application made by the Official Liquidator appointed by this Court by order, dated 30.1.2003 under Section 446 read with Section 456(2) of the Companies Act. By this application, a direction is prayed against Bank of India to pay/release a sum of Rs. 15 lakh in favour of Official Liquidator. It is contended that an amount of Rs. 15 lakh which admittedly belongs to company in liquidation, and is lying in the form of FDR (Annexure A to Application I.A. No. 1957 of 2003) with the Bank of India in the name of the company has come in the custody of Official Liquidator as one of the assets of the company in liquidation by virtue of Section 446 read with Section 456(2) of the Act. It is further contended that since despite request made by Official Liquidator to bank, to remit the said amount together with interest accrued thereon in favour of Official Liquidator, the same has not been done by the bank and, hence, the applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Kadudiya Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT526
S.L. Kochar, J.1. The appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 246/1997 through Jail and Criminal Appeal No. 226/1997 through private Counsel. Hence both the appeals taken up together.2. The appellant/prisoner Kadudiya, feeling dissatisfied by the judgment dated 18-1-1997 rendered in ST. No. 406/1995 passed by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Alirajpur, thereby convicting the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment whereof to suffer S.I. for two months, has preferred these appeals.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case were that on 12-6-1995 at 7.00 p.m. complainant Lalu (P.W. 2) alongwith his colleagues Juwansingh, Sikander and Dhankiya (son of the deceased) were passing from behind the house of the appellant in a bullock-cart. The appellant asked as to why did they bring the wood from the jungle of Jhijhli and why they were taking the bullock-cart from behind h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Banshilal Narsidas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(MP)145; [2004]270ITR231(MP); 2004(1)MPHT127
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, C.J.1. The assessee, Banshilal Narsidas, a Hindu Undivided Family (in short 'HUF') consisting of Banshilal, his five sons and wife, gifted gold ornaments valued at Rs. 29,075/- in favour of his wife, Smt. Venubai, on 5-11-1980 out of the funds and entered the factum of gift in the books of account of HUF. He filed return in respect of the gift tax in the status of an HUF and claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') raising a contention that he, as the 'Karta' of the HUF, had gifted the gold ornaments belonging to the HUF in favour of his wife and he could have done so in law. The claim was negatived by the gift tax officer on the foundation that it was not a gift by an individual to his wife but was a gift by the 'Karta' of the HUF to one of the members of the HUF out of the assets of the HUF and, therefore, exemption under Section 5(1)(viii) of the . Act was not permissible.2. Being grieved by th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jamuna Bai and ors. Vs. Chhote Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC190; 2004ACJ352; 2004(2)MPHT325; 2004(2)MPLJ376
1. The following question is referred to Larger Bench for adjudication :--'Whether the appeal shall fail for non-service of notice or after dispensing with notice upon the respondents who were ex parte before the Court of first instance or they have not submitted the address for service of notice ?'2. It was contended that Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable, but Rule 242 (3) of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 clearly provides that provisions of Order XLI41 of First Schedule of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall mutatis mutandis apply to appeals preferred to the High Court under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act.3. To examine the controversy it will be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Order XLI Rule 14 (4) of Code of Civil Procedure.'Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sub-rule (1), it shall not be necessary to serve notice of any proceeding incidental to an appeal on any respondent other than a person impleaded for the first time in the Appellate Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Kumari and ors. Vs. Prahlad Dev and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC163; 2004ACJ507
Verma and Seth, JJ. 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 8.8.2002 passed by IV M.A.C.T., Indore, in M.V. Case No. 154 of 1996.2. For the death of Ramdhan in a road accident which took place on 23.12.1996, Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,56,000 (rupees two lakh fifty-six thousand) to claimants. By the impugned award the owner and driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CPW 7344 only were found liable to pay the compensation. Tribunal found that accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No. 2. Tribunal exonerated insurance company from its liability to pay compensation on the ground that respondent No. 2, the driver of vehicle was not holding a valid and effective licence on the date of accident. In order to satisfy ourselves, we had directed learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, driver and owner of offending vehicle to produce the driving licence of the respondent No. 2 on the last dat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »