Madhya Pradesh Court May 2005 Judgments
Bagdiram Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-23-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC183; 2005(4)MPLJ234
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.4.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S.T. No. 172/93 convicting the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 4 years and fine of Rs. 1,000 in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment of 6 months, the appellant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring this appeal.2. In brief the case of prosecution is that on 10.5.1993 Kalibai (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) who was living in the house of her parents, ablazed herself. She was sent to the Hospital where a dying declaration of her was recorded. The investigating agency investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet in the competent Court which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the Trial Court for the trial.3. The learned Trial Judge on going throu...
Tag this Judgment!Mishri Bai and ors. Vs. Munna and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-23-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ1653
S.S. Jha and P.K. Jaiswal, JJ.1. This appeal is filed by the claimants for compensation. Claim petition filed by the claimants has been dismissed by the trial court.2. Deceased Prem Giri aged about 45 years was an employee in the Health Department and was earning around Rs. 4,000 (rupees four thousand only) per month. On 28.11.1.996, deceased was standing on the footpath at A.B. Road, village Budhadogar when a Matador bearing registration No. MP 07-4995 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against Prem Giri which caused serious injuries in the head and body which resulted in his death. Respondents denied the factum of accident.3. Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence, dismissed the claim holding therein that accident has not taken place. Trial court has considered the evidence on record and held in para 10 of the award that no F.I.R. about the incident was lodged either by eyewitness Ashok Kumar Jain or Devendra Giri, son of deceased. F.I.R. was lodged 22 days after th...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Kumar Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT466
A.K. Gohil, J. 1. Appellant has been convicted under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violating the provision of Section 6 (3) of the M.P. (Khadya Padarth) Sarvajanik Nagrik Purti Vitran Scheme, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Scheme' only) and sentenced to imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs. 1000/- against which he has filed this appeal.2. As per prosecution story allegation against the appellant was that P.W. 1 Shiromani Dohre, Asst. District Food Officer on 22-9-97 had inspected one Government control shop being run by Seva Sahkari Samiti Amola and appellant was working as salesman thereon and he found that the kerosene oil was not being distributed to the customers as per the prescribed rates. Neither the Ration Card numbers were mentioned in the distribution register nor the signatures of the customers were obtained in the said register. The stock register and rate list was not exhibited on the shop and therefore appellant violated the Clauses...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Vs. Vishav Warama
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC328
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by award dated 2.12.1999 passed by I Addl. MACT, Mandsaur, in Claim Case No. 130/98 whereby a sum of Rs. 64,000 along with interest has been awarded to the appellant and respondent No. 5 has been exonerated, the present appeal has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that on 9.4.1995, when appellant was going in a jeep bearing No. MP14/8472 which met with an accident with a Maruti car bearing No. MP09H/4968. Jeep was insured with respondent No. 5. Maruti car was owned by respondent No. 1, driven by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. After trial, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles. The liability of negligence was fixed in a ratio of 60% of jeep and 40% of Maruti car. Since respondent No. 6 who was driver of the jeep was having the driving licence which was for use of private light motor vehicles, therefore, respondent No. 5 was exon...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Gupta Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT272; 2005(3)MPLJ467
ORDERA.K. Saxena, J.1. This order shall dispose of M.Cr.C. Nos. 3184/05 and 3584/05, as common legal point is involved in both the cases.2. The short facts of both the cases are that the accused/applicants Sunil Gupta and Takeshwar Sahu had filed the applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.PC'), before this Court, as they apprehended their arrest in connection with Crime No. 31/2005 registered at Police Station, Bahoriband, Distt. Katni for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 341 and 327 of the Indian Penal Code, and in Crime No. 359/2004 registered at Police Station, Dindori, Distt. Dindori, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively.3. The applications for anticipatory bail of applicants Takeshwar Sahu and Sunil Gupta, were allowed on 29-3-2005 and 30-3-2005 respectively, with these directions that the order shall remain in force for a period of 45 days and durin...
Tag this Judgment!Hans Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT414
Rakesh Saksena, J.1. Appellant has preferred this appeal against judgment dated 2-2-1998 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Sessions Trial No. 23/1996 convicting the appellant under Section 304A, IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for six months.2. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 13-6-1995 Sanjay Kumar a child of about 1 month was suffering from fever, Munna the father of Sanjay, called the appellant, who is a doctor practicing in the village. It is said that the appellant, administered an injection as a result of which Sanjay Kumar died 1-1 1/2 hours later. Complainant Munna, lodged a report at the Police Station, thereupon Merg No. 11/95 was registered. The dead body of the child Sanjay Kumar was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was performed by Dr. N.K. Choudhary (P.W. 3). According to Dr. N.K. Choudhary, the child had died due to asphyxia...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanraj Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3782; 2005(3)MPHT107; 2005(3)MPLJ332
A.K. Gohil, J.1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid appeals.2. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 443/99 has been convicted under Section 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('Act' for short) and sentenced to undergo six months' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 14/01 has been convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 649/98 has been convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and Section 323, IPC and sentenced to six months S.I. and fine of Rs. 700/- respectively.3. Short facts of the case in Criminal Appeal No. 443/99 are that complainant lodged a report that Government had provided him some land on Patta which he used to till. Appellant forcefully encroached upon the same and has sown Soyabean. On objection from complainant, appellant said Bhaag Ja Basod Nahin To Maaroonga and starte...
Tag this Judgment!Saurabh Alloy Castings Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(188)ELT473(MP)
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19-4-2000 (Annexure P/11) passed by Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, present petition has been filed.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide interim order dated 27-3-2000, petitioner was to make pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-, which could not be deposited by the petitioner. At the time of hearing, petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the appeal to approach Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commissioner, which was not permitted by the appellate Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Section 32PA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which lay down that any person can move an application to the appellate Tribunal for permission to withdraw appeal. It further lay down that on receipt of an application, the appellate Tribunal shall grant permission to withdraw the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sahab Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ348; 2005(4)MPHT127; 2005(4)MPLJ181
A.K. Gohil, J.1. Surety has filed this appeal under Section 449, Cr.PC against the order dated 29-7-2000 by which Trial Court has forfeited the bail amount of Rs. 50,000/- and directed that in default of recovery of the amount, appellant be sent to civil jail for a period of six months.2. Contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in Sessions Trial No. 38/99 appellant was surety of co-accused Pappu alias Rajkumar s/o Kishan Singh for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. He was regularly appearing. He was also present in the Court on the date of judgment but he ran away from the accused box of the Court before the pronouncement of the judgment but in the show-cause notice nothing was mentioned about these facts. His contention is that nothing has been mentioned in the surety bond that for such an incident he will be responsible for payment of amount of bond and submitted that he has not violated any terms and conditions of the surety bond and the Trial Court has wrongly and illegally...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Prasad Mishra and anr. Vs. Dadan Prasad Mishra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT162
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The respondent No. 1 initiated a civil action forming the subject-matter of Civil Suit No. 36-A/2001 before the learned Third Civil Judge Class-II, Satna against the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 2 to 16 for declaration of right, title and interest for permanent injunction on the foundation that he has perfected his title by prescription in respect of area admeasuring 2.09 acres situate at Khasra No. 427 and area admeasuring 0.35 acres situated at Khasra No. 428, mouja-Jaitwara, area admeasuring 2.49 acres Khasra No. 645 of mouza Hatiya, Tehsil Raghuraj Nagar. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the Court below seeking temporary injunction. The said prayer was resisted by the respondent No. 2 on the base that the disputed lands were ancestral property and the plaintiff in collusion with the Patwari has mutated his name in a forged manner which has been assailed before the competent revenue. The questio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »