Court : Madhya Pradesh
Cr.A.No.1253/2012 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri M.Shafiqullah, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Amit Pandey, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1-State. Heard on admission. This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 8/5/12 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.133/10, whereby respondent nos.2 to 4 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.2.10, at about 12.40 a.m., Jitendra Chourasiya (PW1).son of respondent Nos.1 & 2, informed at Police Station Maharajpur that, on the same day at about 9.30 p.m., when his father was away and only mother, sister and himself were available at home, his cousin Rajesh came in an inebriated condition, and after abusing his entire family from outside, went away. At about 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.13026/2013 (Mahesh Tripathi ...Vs...State of M.P.& otheRs.31-07-2013 Heard Shri Abhisheikh Arjariya, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 12-7-2013 by which he has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Karhilami, Janpad Panchayat, Amarpatan, to Gram Panchayat Obera, Janpad Panchayat Amarpatan, District Satna. It is alleged that the impugned order has been passed contrary to the transfer policy formulated in this regard which provides that a Panchayat Secretary of a Gram Panchayat should be transferred to the adjacent Gram Panchayat. It is also alleged that the petitioner had filed a contempt petition against the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat, Satna, the respondent No.6, and that is why he has been subjected to the aforesaid transfer. A Division Bench of this Court in R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.ILR [2007].MP 132.has already held that in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Misc. Criminal Case No.8372/2012 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Amit Pandey, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. As per office notice the application is time barred by 48 days. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is, hereby condoned. Heard on admission. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code. for short).By the impugned judgment dated 19/5/12 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna in Sessions Trial No.19/11, respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 294 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC.).Prosecution case, in brief, is that since 2-3 months prior to the date of incident, respondent no.1 Shabber was attempting to develop illicit relations with the prosecutrix and was, therefore, asked by her father Sahabali (PW1) to stay away from his house. On 19/8/10, in the morning, when Sahabali retu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Writ Petition No.12096/2013 (Ramkumar Soni ..versus State of M.P.& otheRs.31-07-2013 Shri Bhoopesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Jain, learned P.L.for the State/respondents. Heard the learned appearing for the petitioner on the question of admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at length, submits that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent/authorities to take up scrutiny of the cases in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Appeal No.1202/2010 decided on 15-12-2010 and also give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before the scrutiny committee to establish that his appointment may be irregular at best but not illegal and thereafter take a decision in the matter expeditiously in accordance with law within a fixed period of time. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the authorities have in fact passed the impugned order dated 31-5-2013/0-6-2013 with a view to ensure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Misc. Criminal Case No.6268/2012 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Amit Pandey, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. Heard on admission. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code. for short).By the impugned judgment dated 30/3/12 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Harda in Criminal Case No.39/10, respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the Code.) respectively. Prosecution case, in brief, is that against a preexisting dispute between Sunil and Bhika alia Bhopali, on 27/3/10 at about 10.30 p.m., when Sushila was returning with her husband Sunil after meeting her sister and had to halt due to a passing train near the house of Bhika, respondents Ramu, Bhika, Ram and co-accused Mahesh Balahi along with 1-2 boys came outside the house of Bhika. Respondent Ramu dealt a stone blow on the head of Sunil and pressed his mouth. R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Cr.A.No.2174/2012 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Ramakant Patel, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Amit Pandey, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1-State. Heard on I.A.No.21401/12, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (for brevity Act.) for condonation of delay As per Office note the appeal is barred by 984 days. This appeal has been preferred on 4/10/2012 by victim Khuman Singh under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal passed on 17/11/2009 in Sessions Trial No.4/07 by Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa, whereby respondent nos.2 to 5 have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 294, 307, 323, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC.) and 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act. A bare perusal of contents of the application would reveal that the only ground for condonation, as raised in paragraph 2 therein, is that the complainant was under assurance of the Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.6114/2009 31/7/2013: Shri H.B.Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1,6, 8 and 9. Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.7. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.10. None appears for respondents No.2 to 5 even though served. Petitioner was a student who appeared in the P.E.P.T 200.examination conducted for admission to Technical Education (Engineering Courses).After being successful in the entrance examination, his name appeared in the list of candidates eligible to participate in the process of counseling, which was held in Rewa Engineering College and based on the counseling admission was granted to the petitioner vide Annexure P/1 issued by the counseling authority. Petitioner was admitted to a B.E.CouRs.in Computer Science and Engineering and was allotted a seat in Baba College of Engineering (Godarmal).Bhopal and the petitioner was directed to deposit the approved fees of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.28/2013 SureshKumarThakre&Ors.vs.StateofM.P.&ORS.1 31.07.2013 Shri Brijesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.The default, pointed out by the office is ignored. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.who are Guest TeacheRs.have filed this petition being aggrieved by notification dated 1.8.2010 and are also claiming regularization. The learned counsel for the petitioneRs.however, submits that the petitioners wants to be regularized on the post of contract teachers and for this purpose the petitioners have filed a representation, Annexure P-4, before the respondent/State which is pending consideration. It is submitted that the petition be disposed of by directing the authorities to consider the same. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.it is observed that as the petitioners have already approached the respondent authorities for mitigation of their grievance, I find no reason to entertain the present petition. The prayer of the learned counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Revision No.1210/2013 31.07.2013 Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the applicant. Dr. Anjali Gyanani, Panel Lawyer for the State. With the consent of both the parties, this revision is finally heard at motion stage itself. Applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 14.5.2013 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Sessions Trial No.169/2010 whereby a mobile seized from the deceased, has been directed to be delivered to Investigating Officer for recording of its call details and the recording done in the said mobile. Applicant is facing trial under section 304-B I.P.C.on the allegation that he committed dowry death of his wife. A mobile was seized from the possession of deceased in which, it is alleged, a software was implanted by her brother Piyush Singh (PW-2) for recording the conversation taking place between deceased and other persons. In compliance of the order dated 2.1.2013 passed by High Court in Criminal Revision No.282/2011, trial Court passed the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 W.P.NO.1567/2010 31.07/2013 Shri Abhishek Arjaria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 3. Shri P.Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Present petition is directed against non-decision on an application under Rules 63, 77 and 80 of the M.P.Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995. Election for member of ward No.12 of Zila Panchayat, Satna on 21.01.2010. Petitioner contested the election counting whereof was also scheduled for 21.01.2010. Case of the petitioner is that the procedure as is required to be followed as per Rules 63 and 77 of 1995 Rules were not adhered to and though a protest vide representation was lodged with the Returning officer. No deicision was taken under Rule 80 of the Rules 1995. Aggrieved whereof and without waiting for the final outcome which was to be on 06.02.2010, 2 W.P.NO.1567/2010 petitioner filed this petition on 04.02.2010. That during the pendency of the petition results were declared...
Tag this Judgment!