Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001CriLJ873
ORDERMaithli Sharan, J.1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out of the judgment passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar District-Guna in Criminal Appeal No. 159/97 dt. 25-6-98, maintaining the order of conviction passed against the petitioner by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ashoknagar DistrictGuna under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and enhancing the sentence of imprisonment from 8 months R.I. to one year R.I.2. The brief facts of the case, lying in a narrow compass, leading to the filing of this petition, are thus; On 5-1-90 the petitioner was arrested under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and during the search being made he was found in possession of a country made gun in two pieces for which he had no licence. The said gun, found to be in working order, was seized by the police and a case for the offence under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 was registered against the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)MPHT251
ORDERRakesh Saksena, J.1. Applicants have filed this revision against the order dated 30-4-2008 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhopal, in MJC No. 45/2008, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the Inspector General, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal to investigate the matters alleged in the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant and to proceed under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, applicant No. 1-Vivek Aggarwal, an IAS Officer belonging to the Madhya Pradesh Cadre, was posted as Collector at Indore. Applicant No. 2-Smt. Sapna Aggarwal is his wife. Complainant Premchand Guddu, who is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, filed a complaint against the applicants in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhopal making allegations of corruption in high places of administration attracting the penal provisions of Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1999)156CTR(MP)261
ORDERS. B. Sakrikar, J.The unsuccessful petitioners (accused) have filed this petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10/86 of the Court of ACJM (Economic Offences), Indore.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the non-applicant, Income Tax Officer 'A' Ward, Khandwa, filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences), Indore, against the petitioners and deceased partners of the firm M/s Kanhaiyalal Deepchand Jain alleging commission of offence punishable under section 276E/278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is alleged that during the course of assessment proceedings for the year 1983-84 of the applicant No. 1, assessee-firm, it was found that the firm repaid the loan amount in cash i.e., otherwise that A/c Payee cheques or the draft, respectively, to Smt. Basanti Bai W/o Kanhaiyalal; Rajeshkumar Roopchand Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 10,200 when the balance in their account was exceeding Rs. 10,000....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2000]241ITR323(MP); 1999(2)MPLJ19
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioners (accused) have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10 of 1986 of the court of the ACJM (Economic Offences), Indore.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the non-applicant, Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Khandwa, filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Indore, against the petitioners and the deceased partners of the firm, Kanhaiyalal Deepchand Jain, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 276E/ 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is alleged that during the course of assessment proceedings for the year 1983-84 of applicant No. 1, the asses-see-firm, it was found that the firm repaid the loan amount in cash, i.e., otherwise than by account payee cheques or the draft, respectively, to Smt. Basanti Bai wife of Kanhaiyalal ; Rajeshkumar Roopchand, Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 10,200 when ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(4)MPHT199; 2001(3)MPLJ302
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J. 1. The applicant No. 1 Yesu and applicant No. 2 Beeru were convicted under Section 392 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each and were required to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 each or in default they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each- This judgment dated 6-11-2000 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 244 and 245/2000 was challenged by the applicants by filing the Criminal Revision was filed on 2-1-2001. It was listed for admission and for grant of bail on 8-1-2001. The revision was admitted and the applicants were granted bail. It appears, that applicant No. 1 Yesu, had filed a jail appeal against the impugned judgment dated 6-11-2000 passed in Criminal (Jail) Appeal Nos. 244 and 245/2000. This Jail Appeal was received in the office of this Court on 8-1-2001. Since the judgment appealed against was not appealable, the jail appeal did not lie. There is no provision inthe Code of Criminal Procedure for filing a Criminal Revisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963MP249; 1963CriLJ161; 1963MPLJ382
ORDERT.P. Naik, J.1. The order in this revision shall also disposeof criminal revision No. 199 of 1961.2. These are applications for revising the order ofthe Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, dated 30-8-1960,whereby he held that the proceedings initiated before himon a complaint by Shri Mahabir Prasad, for offence under Sections 342, 352 and 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant Major Gopinathan, an officer ofthe Armed Forces and as such subject to the Army Act,shall proceed, notwithstanding the fact that the Commanding Officer of the accused (Major Gopinathan) had givennotice to the Magistrate that in his opinion he (the accused)should be tried by a court-martial.3. Facts, which are necessary for understanding thecontroversy, are as follows:Shri Mahabir Prasad filed a complaint against Major Gopinathan, the applicant, and ten others for offences underSections 341, 342, 352, 500 and 504 read with Sections 34 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code in the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(3)MPLJ325
ORDERS.A. Naqvi, J.1. This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner Girraj said to be a delinquent juvenile has been convicted by impugned order dated 3-3-2006 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No. 95/2006 whereby confirming the order dated 1-3-2006 rejecting bail application of petitioner.2. Petitioner has been charged for committing offence under Sections 302 and 376 of I.P.C. and he is under custody in connection with crime No. 17/2006 registered by police station Vijaypur tehsil Raghogarh district Guna. ft has been observed by appellate court in para 10 of its order that date of birth of delinquent juvenile is 4-10-19S8 and he is a juvenile. Both the courts below rejected the bail application of petitioner on the ground that if petitioner is released on bail, his release would defeat the ends of justice. Aggrieved by impugned order, under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978MP150
Shiv Dayal, C.J.1. A Division Bench has framed the following question and referred it to us for answer :--'Whether or not the Judicial Authority under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act acts as a persona designate while hearing appeals under Section 6A of the Act and. secondly, whether a revision would lie against the order of the Judicial Authority before the High Court?'2. It appears that the Collector proceeded against the petitioner and 11 others under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). He served a show cause notice under Section 6B of the Act and proposed to confiscate the wheat and trucks. After enquiry, the Collector found the applicants to have contravened the provisions of the Inter-Zonal Wheat and Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1973, and confiscated the wheat as well as the trucks. The petitioner and others preferred an appeal to the Judicial Authority, i.e. the District and Sessions Judge, Khandwa, who dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1996)DMC508
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. This is a revision directed against the order dated 14.12.1992 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas Camp Kannod in Criminal Revision No. 7/90. Thereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge set-aside the order dated 14.12.1989 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khategaon in Misc. Criminal Case No. 9/89 by which the learned Magistrate found the non-applicant entitled for the recovery of maintenance allowance preceding one year from the date of filing of the application dated 3.3.1989 under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant Sitabai filed an application against the present applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for awarding maintenance allowance to herself and also to her minor child. The maintenance claimed by her was Rs. 300/- per month. The said application was opposed by the applicant Premchand. The learned Trial Court by its order dated 1.11.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2874
N.K. Jain, J.1. Pursuant to the order of Reference, passed on 3-10-97 by one of us. (N.K. Jain, J.) this M.Cr.C. has been placed before us for resolving the question as extracted below :Whether the High Court can, in an appropriate case, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., grant permission to the parties to compound a non-com-poundable offence or quash criminal prosecution as a result of such compromise between the parties, to secure ends of justice, keeping in view the statutory bar contained under section 320(9) Cr.P.C.?2. The applicants herein are facing criminal trial (Criminal Case No. 3771/95 State of M.P. v. Deepak) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, instituted on a police report, under Sections 406 and 498A, IPC. When the case was fixed for evidence on 30-5-97, an application was filed by respondent No. 3 Smt. Leena Dawar, under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C., for permission to compound the offences against the applicants. The learned tr...
Tag this Judgment!