Madhya Pradesh Court June 2013 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.
Gangaram Tirole Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
MCC No.52/2013 MCC No.52/2013 24.6.2013 Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. The applicant has moved a contempt petition No.466/2012 for grant of benefit vide order dated 13.10.2010 in W.P.No.14295/2010 (S) but, vide order dated 2.4.2012, the single Bench of this Court has dismissed the contempt petition being barred by limitation. On 12.4.2013, an opportunity was given to the learned counsel for applicant whether such type of application is maintainable as it is filed by the applicant in the present matter. The learned counsel for the applicant could not show any case law of Hon'ble the Apex Court on this point. The applicant had relied upon the order dated 4.1.2013 passed by the single Bench of this Court in MCC No.1382/2012. However, it is an interim order. If a writ is issued in favour of the petitioner then, due to not compliance of that writ, a contempt petition may be moved. The present applicant could not ...
Sanjay Sharma @ Bunty Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Cr.R.No.1027/13 24/06/13 Shri Bhoopesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging the order dated 29/04/13 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Session Trial No.57/13 closing the right of the applicants herein to cross-examine three of the prosecution witnesses namely PW-1 Shri K.M.Khan, PW-2 Shri Mukesh Kumar and PW-3 Shri Pankaj Golani, this revision petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the order and a direction to produce the witnesses for cross-examination. Even though, various grounds are raised in the application and Shri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the State opposed the same but considering the fact that the counsel in question who had represented the applicants on the date of hearing i.e.on 29/04/13 had appeared for the applicants for the fiRs.time and if right of cross-examination of the applicants are denied, it may adversely affec...
Deshraj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Writ Petition No.10420/2013 24.06.2013 Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned PL for respondents. The petitioner working as Kotwar/Choukidar of the village has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ of Mandamus directing the authority of respondents to decide his claim/representation, (Ann. P-5).in the light of notification dated 3.3.2010, (Ann. P-3) and the order of this court dated 17.1.2013, (Ann. P-4) passed in W.P.No.939/2009. Having heard the counsel, in the available circumstances, instead to admit or issuing any notice to the other side, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the authority of respondents to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, (Ann. P-5).keeping in view the aforesaid notification (Annexure P-3) and order of this Court, (Ann. P-4) in a speaking manner within six months from the date of submitting a copy of this order...
Ravi Shanker Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Cr.A.No.1473/2013 24/06/2013 Shri Anand Datt Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pramod Chourasiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Appeal is admitted for hearing. Heard on I.A.No.13723/2013. Call for the records from the court below. List for hearing along with the records. Considering the nature of sentence imposed, I.A.No.13723/2013 is allowed. Appellant (Ravi Shanker) be directed to release in bail and operation of the sentence of conviction is directed to be suspended on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 5th of September, 2013 and on such other dates as may be ordered. With the aforesaid, I.A.No.13723/2013 stands allowed and disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Jitendra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Criminal Revision No ::1028. / 2013 Jitendra versus State of Madhya Pradesh 24.06.2013. Shri L.N.Sakle for the applicant. Shri Akshat Namdeo, Panel Lawyer, for the State. In this revision petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicant, who has been convicted for an offence under section 304-A of the IPC, challenges his imprisonment for a period of 3 months and fine of `500/-. The conviction has been upheld by the appellate court and, therefore, the orders of the trial court and the appellate court are challenged. Applicant was driving a Bolero Jeep on 26.4.2006, at about 1.00 in the afternoon, when it was found that due to the accident one Shri Amar Singh suffered injuries and died. For the same, finding the applicant to have driven the Bolero Jeep in a rash and negligent manner, sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment was imposed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence available on record, this Court does not ...
Jagannath Kurmi Vs. Laxman
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Writ Petition No.10231/2013 24.06.2013 Shri D.S.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S. Ganguli, learned PL for respondent-State. With the permission of the court, the petitioneRs.counsel has corrected the description of title of writ petition whereby at the place of defendants. he has stated plaintiffs. and at the place of plaintiffs. he has stated defendants.The same is certified. The petitioneRs.counsel is heard on the question of admission. The petitioners plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the orders dated 22.4.2013 and 10.5.2013 passed by the Upper District Judge, Khurai, district Sagar in Civil Appeal No.6-A/13, whereby operation and execution of the decree passed by the IInd Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No.6-A/13, vide judgment dated 30.3.2013 has been stayed subject to some terms and conditions. As per submission of the petitioneRs.counsel such decree has been passed in favour of the p...
Ashish Kumar Atre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
W.P.No.10809/2012 W.P.No.13658/2011 24.6.2013 Shri Nitin Gupta, counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.10809/2012. Shri Pramod Thakre, counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.13658/2011. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.A.G., for respondent/State. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, counsel for respondent no.3. The petitioners are students of LL.B.Ist year. They are seeking direction from this Court for declaration of their results, so that they may prosecute their studies in the next year. In identical matter W.P.No.9960/2012 (Asha Majhi & others versus State of M.P.& otheRs.a Division Bench of this Court on 10.6.2013 issued directions for declaration of results, subject to final decision in that petition. In view of order dated 10.6.2013, we find it appropriate to direct respondents thus :- The respondents shall declare the results of petitioners for the Ist semester LL.B.Ist year within a period of one week from today and the successful students shall be permitted to prosecute their studies in the IInd year, however ...
Kundan Yadav @ Mahendra Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Cr.R.No.1048/13 24/06/13 Shri Lavkush Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging his conviction under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and a sentence of three months imprisonment along with a fine of ` 500/- passed by the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Rewa in Criminal Case No.2091/10 and upholding of the sentence in a criminal appeal Cr.A.No.14/13 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, this revision petition has been filed. Taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances, the nature of injury sustained and the fact that applicant has been in custody for more than 25 days, interest of justice would be met if the conviction is modified to the jail sentence already undergone and a fine amount increased. Accordingly, taking note of the totality of the circumstances, this revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of the applicant is upheld but the sentence of imprisonment is modified to one alrea...
Shivaji Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Shivaji versus State of M.P.Cr.R.No.1074 24. 06.2013. Shri Naeem Khan, learned counsel for applicant. Shri Pramod Chourasiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Call for the record. List for hearing along with the records. Heard on I.A.No.13338/2013, an application for condonation of delay. Even though there is delay of 4 years in filing the revision petition, but the fact that has come on record indicates that the appeal of the applicant was heard in the absence of applicant and the record indicates that the applicant acquired knowledge of judgment only when warrant of arrest for execution of sentence was issued. Keeping in view the aforesaid the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. Also heard on I.A.No.13339/2013 an application for suspension of sentence filed by applicant. Applicant has been convicted to undergo 1 year RI with fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 25(1-B)(A) of Arms Act. Considering the fact that the applicant has been convicted to undergo 1 year...
Mahendra Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Mahendra Kumar & Another versus State of M.P.Criminal Revision No.953 24. 06.2013. Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for applicants. Shri Pramod Chourasiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Applicants have been convicted for offence under Sections 3, 2(d) r/w Section 7(1)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I.for 3 months with fine of Rs.500/-. Applicants were found to be carrying unauthorized kerosene oil in jerkin. Taking note of totality of facts and circumstances and the fact that applicants have already been undergone jail sentence for one month and 8 days, interest of justice would be met in case the conviction is upheld and the sentence reduced to period already undergone, and the fine amount has been deposited. Keeping in view the aforesaid revision petition is allowed in part. Even though conviction of applicant for sentence in question is upheld, the jail sentence is reduced from three months RI to imprisonment undergone, i.e.1 month...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »