Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950MP17; 1950CriLJ731
Sanghi, J.1. The petitioner came to Indore from West Pakistan on 4th September 1948, under a permit issued by the Deputy High Commissioner for India in West Pakistan under Ordinance No. 17 of 1948 made by the Governor-General of India Under Section 42, Government of India Act, 1935. In the permit the duration of the visit to India is stated to be for a period of six weeks. The applicant, sot having left Indore on the expiry of the six weeks, was arrested on 6th November 1948, by the Sub-Inspector of Police in charge Sadar Bazar Police Station House in the city of Indore for having contravened the provisions of Section 8 of the Ordinance. On the following day, he was produced before the District Magistrate, Indore City who ordered his release on bail. The District Magistrate is awaiting the police challan. On 9th December 1948, the petitioner made a petition to this Court Under Section 491, Criminal P.C. alleging that his arrest was illegal and that bis bail should be cancelled. He alle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950MP34; 1950CriLJ902
Sanghi, J.1. On 24th December 1948, the petitioner Latif Ahamad made an application, to 'this Court alleging that the five person named therein were his relations and that they had been arrested in Indore by the Assistant City Superintendent of Police that day, that the arrests and their detention in custody were illegal and they should, therefore, Under Section 491, Criminal P.C., be set at liberty. The detenus named in the petition had in fact been under detention under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, V [5] of 1948, since September 1948, and had been ordered to be released by an order of this Court. They were released from custody on 24th December 1948, and were arrested immediately thereafter.2. The petition was heard on 11th January 1943. The Public Prosecutor appearing for the State produced four documents but did not file any statement in writing explaining their use to meat the petitioner's case. The first document is an affidavit made by Mr. Gappoolal. Assistant Oity...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950MP25; 1950CriLJ764
ORDERMehta, J.1. This criminal reference is made by the District Magistrate, Ratlam, recommending that the conviction of accused Hukumchand, NO. 2 Bapulal and no. 3 Ratanlal, by the First Class Magistrate Ratlam Under Sections 323 & 504 be set aside. The short facts are that the complainant Chandmal filed a complaint Under Sections 323, 352, 504, 500, 506 and 109, Penal Code against 10 persons consisting of the entire family, The trial Court proceeded Under Sections 323 and 504 and all the accused were discharged except Hukumchand, Bapulal and Ratanlal - Hukum. chand was convicted Under Section 323, Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of RSection 10 and Bapulal and Batanlal are convicted Under Section 504 and sentenced to a fine of RSection 10 each.2. I have gone through the order of reference and it appears to me that the referenoe must be aoeepted. The reference is also supported by the Publio Prosecutor. It appears to me that this complaint is not at all well founded. It is alleged t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950MP9; 1950CriLJ655
ORDERSanghi, J.1. On 20th March 1949 the applicant was arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Indore City, by the order of the District Magistrate, Indore District, made Under Section 3(2), Maintenance of Public Order Act (vil [7] of 1949). On 24th March were communicated to the applicant the grounds on which the order had been made against him as required by 8. S of the Act. The grounds as furnished to the accused were as follows:Whereas you belong to R. S. S. which has been declared unlawful by the Government. You are a leader of the said Association and indulging in euch acts to bring into hatred the Government established by law in India and promoting or attempting to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of subjects and to prejudice the maintenance of public order on public safety.On 1st April 1949 the petitioner made a petition to this Court Under Section 491, Criminal P.C. praying that an order for his release from custody be made as it was ill...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ578
Rege, J.1. This is an application under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The petitioner alleges that his son aged 9 & a daughter aged 7 years have been illegally detained by the opponents. A notice was served on the opponents and in reply opponent No. 1, Sultan Hamid Khan appeared through Pleader to show cause against the rule. His case is that the petitioner was married to Naiyar Jehan Begum but after her death on 16.12.1943 the petitioner did not take care of the children and that he had another wife from whom he had children as well; that after the death of the mother the children were looked after by the mother's mother who died on 6.3.1949. During her life-time she (the mother's mother), made a petition to the Administrator and Chief Minister, Jaora State in March 1948 in which she expressed her desire that after her death the children should be looked after by the Government of Jaora & their property should also be in trust with the State. The Chief Minister accepted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950MP43; 1950CriLJ1131
ORDERRege, J.1. This is a petition by the learned Public Prosecutor, Indore for cancellation of bail. The opponent Balwanta Singh was accused of causing the death of one Dhulji and put up before the Manawar Magistrate for enquiry into a charge Under Section 292, Tajirat Gwalior (302 of the Penal Code), but the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that there were not sufficient grounds to justify a commitment on that charge and in accordance with the local practice he referred the case to the District Sub-Judge. The learned SubJudge disagreeing with the Magistrate's view sent up the accused for trial on a charge of murder Under Section 292, Gwalior Tajirat. It appears that the accused who had been released on bail by the Magistrate was sent up in the custody by the learned Sub-Judge, to the Sessions Judge, , and he remained in custody until after the close of the ease foe the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge released him on his executing a bond for appearance in a sum of Rs. 25O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1950CriLJ1345
ORDERSanghi, J.1. On 27th September 1948, the Magistrate, first alas? at Khaegaon, convicted the two petitioners under Section 18, lndore Penal Code, read with notification no. SO dated 12th October 1920 and also Under Section 74, District Municipalities Act. and sentenced them each to para fine of US. 25. Against this order of conviction and sentence they filed a revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge, who has made recommendation to this Court that the petition Bhould be allowed.2. The act of the two petitioners which constitute the offence is that their father Mukundgir died on 37th May 1946 and they buried him in close proximity to their dwelling house in Khate-gaon. The Notification referred to above was issued by the then Home Minister to the Government of His Highness the Maharaja Holkar in the Holkar Government Gazette dated 18th ootober 1930 which reads thus:It is, therefore, hereby ordered that any person burying or burning the dead at a place other than the plac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ868
ORDERRege, J.1. Mt. Parwatibai wife of Prabhulal instituted proceedings against her husband for maintenance under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The husband resisted the petition on the ground of infidelity of his wife. The learned Magistrate Bhanpura, allowed the application and directed that maintenance at Rs. 30/- per month should be given to Parwatibai. The opponent went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge, Garoth who has reported the case with a recommendation that the order of the Magistrate should be set aside and the case remanded for further inquiry. The learned Magistrate found the allegation of infidelity improved and it cannot be said that the finding is without foundation. It is in evidence, however, that the petitioner Prabhulal Is a minor and his means to pay the maintenance consist only of his interest in the joint family property. The learned Magistrate appears entirely to have ignored the meagre evidence tendered by the applicant Parwatibai re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ574
ORDERDixit, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Sessions Court Raj Garh refusing to make a reference to this Court for setting aside the order dated 22.6.49 of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panchhor in certain maintenance proceedings. On 20th June 1947, the applicant Hari Narayan was directed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sarangpur to pay maintenance to his children and wife Mt. Rani Devi. The order of maintenance passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was affirmed by the Dewas (Junior) High Court with slight modification. The applicant did not pay the maintenance ordered for the period from 6.5.48 to 28.3.49 and on 31.3.49, Mt. Rani Devi applied to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pachhor to enforce the order under Section 488(3), Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant objected to the execution of the order on the ground that his wife Mt. Rani Devi, without sufficient cause refuses to live with him. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate took the view that it was not o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ73
ORDERMehta, J.1. This application under Section 56IA, Criminal P.C. has been submitted by the pleader for the accused-applicant, Shree Rajkumarc singh. The shore facts leading to this application are that Rajkumarsingh has been prosecuted for contravention of a notification issued under the Essential Supplies Order, 1946. The accused is being prosecuted in the Court of Municipal Magistrate : Vide criminal case no. 6854 of 1949. The Municipal Magistrate had issued a bail warrant against the applicant to which he has surrendered.2. Now this application is made for exemption of the accused from personal attendance in the trial Court on the ground that the applicant Rajkumarsingh is the managing Director of Rajkumar Mill, Hukumchand Mill and Hira Mill, Ujjain, and he has to attend the day to day business of the mills and has very often to move out of Indore in connection with the affairs of the aforesaid mills and textile industry, The question for decision is whether this Court should exe...
Tag this Judgment!