Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ487
ORDERS.K. Chawla, J.1. This is a revision by the accused persons challenging revisional order dated 1-10-1988 passed by the Sessions Judge, Morena setting aside Magistrate's order rejecting the complaint against accused persons and also remanding the case to the Magistrate for proceeding further in accordance with law.2. A complaint was filed in the name of M. P. Pradushan Nivaran Mandal (hereinafter referred to as the State Board) signed by its Member-Secretary Shri R. K. Khare in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sabalgarh on 7-8-1985 against two accused persons named 'The Morena Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Ltd.' and General Manager of the said factory. These are the petitioners in this revision petition. The allegation made was that the accused persons were running a sugar factory and discharging effluents in contravention of the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of Water (Prevention and Control on Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the Act) and thereby were com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993CriLJ1825
S.K. Chawla, J.1. Accused Ram Charan has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Section 376. I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years inflicted thereunder.2. The prosecution story rested on the evidence of the prosecutrix Mst. Kalia (P.W. 2) and the evidence of Kanghi (P.W. 3), a person who chanced to be in a neighbouring house. Mst. Kalia is a married Woman aged about 25 years. The accused Ram Charan is a Chowkidar of the village and lives in the locality of the prosecutrix. Both belong to the same caste, namely, chamar. The evidence of Mst. Kalia is that in broad day light at about 4 p.m. the accused came to her house located in the midst of other houses. She was sitting outside the door of her house. The accused dragged her inside the room of her house and there threw her down. The accused then had forcible carnal knowledge of her. She was not a consenting party. She had put up resistance. Her bangles got broken and buttons of her blouse got uprooted. She...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1993)DMC243
S.D. Jha, J.1. The appellant-State of M.P. through this appeal against acquittal, challenges judgment dated 29-2-88 delivered by II Additional Sessions Judge Dewas in Sections Trial No. 12 of 1985 (State v. Ashok and others) acquitting the respondents accused of charges under Sections 306, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.2. Accused Ashok is the son of accused No. 2 Anokhilal and accused No. 3 Sharda is mother of accused Ashok. Accused N01. 4, 5 and 6 namely Giru alias Girjesh, Kiran find Madhu alias Munni are sisters of accused Ashok and daughters of accused No. 2 Anokhilal and No. 3 Ms. Sharda. Prosecution case is that deceased Kamini alias Shobha daughter of Surendrakumer (P.W. 1) was married to accused Ashok, on 20-1-84. la the marriage two gold rings, one small almirahs and some utensils were given. According to the prosecution, accused Ashok and his parents and sisters used to harass Kamini laying that gold rings were less in weight and almirah was small. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993MP147; 1993(0)MPLJ273
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Peculiar facts have given rise to this appeal. It is a classical example of petty landlord-tenant litigation being dragged on for unreasonable length of time, thanks to procedural tools available to unscrupulous litigants and errors of procedure unwittingly committed in law Courts.2. The suit accommodation is residential held by the tenant/defendant/appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. The plaintiff/ respondent is a practising lawyer. It appears that the defendant/appellant No. 1 was a clerk in the office of the plaintiffs father, who too is an Advocate. Presumably this close affinity, and probably the convenience of the Advocate father and son, persuaded them in permitting their clerk occupying their premises as a tenant some time in the year 1974-75. According to the defendant No. I, he snapped his office relationship with the plaintiff w.e.f. 30-9-1976. The plaintiff must have expected the defendant No. 1 to vacate the premises simultaneously with his dissociat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1993)DMC581; 1993(0)MPLJ175
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The plaintiff/appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing her suit for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent, in reversal of the decree of the Trial Court which had decreed the suit.2. Vide order dated 13-3-1984, this Court admitted the appeal for hearing parties on the following substantial questions of law :'(i) Whether it was an admitted fact that, at the time of her marriage with the respondent, the appellant was aged 14 years and, therefore, it was not open to the first appellate Court to find that she was aged 15 years on that day ?(ii) Whether, even if it is assumed that the appellant was aged 15 years on the date of her marriage with the respondent, the marriage is void for the reason that the consent was given not by her but her father ?'3. Parties are Muslims. Marriage was performed between them on 5-4-1977. Mehr settled was Rs. 20,000/-.4. According to the plaintiff, she was given in marriage by her fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1993)IILLJ234MP; 1993(0)MPLJ131
ORDER1. The controversy raised in this petition is whether an employee, whose services were terminated prior to July 30, 1976, i.e., prior to amendment of Section 62(i) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short, the 'Act'), can institute the proceedings even after lapse of period of one year, the period prescribed for commencing the proceedings, without first approaching the Labour Court in the manner prescribed.2. Counsel beard.3. After hearing counsel, we are of the opinion that the bar of limitation imposed by M.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1976, does not apply to an employee, whose services were dispensed with prior to the enforcement of the Ordinance and who made an application for reinstatement after the Ordinance came into force, as before the incorporation of the period of limitation, no limitation was prescribed; therefore, the vested right of an employee to approach the Labour Court in the manner provided and during the time prescribed prior to July 30, 1976, cannot be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1993)ACC656; 1994ACJ249; AIR1993MP79; 1993(0)MPLJ38
S.K. Chawla, J.1. This is an appeal by claimants from an award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (for short Tribunal) dismissing their claim.2. On May, 1, 1983, in the early morning hours around 5 a.m., a motor accident had taken place at Sheopurkalan road, in which one Asgar Ali, aged 45 years, was crushed on both of his legs and died on the following day in a hospital of those injuries. The vehicle in question was truck No. MPW 9961 driven at that time by one Shyam Sharma (respondent No. 2 herein and owned by one Nemichand (respondent No. 1 herein), which was insured with National Insurance Company (respondent No. 3 herein).3. The case of the claimants appellants, who are widow and children of the deceased, to the effect that accident occurred because of negligent driving of truck by the driver, was disbelieved by the claims Tribunal. On the other hand, the Tribunal accepted the version of the opposite parties that the deceased had committed suicide by laying himself under the movi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ512
ORDERGulab C. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner is the son of late Rani Padmavati Devi and claims interest in lands and building of Khasra No. 11, Telibandha, Raipur owned by her. He feels aggrieved by the order dated 20th September 1988 (Annexure-D) of the respondent State granting permission to the respondent No. 2 to sell the said land and challenges its legality and validity by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. There is no dispute between the parties that the lands and building under dispute were owned by late Rani Padmawati Devi who died intestate at Bhopal on 12th April 19871eavingbehindherhusbandRajaBirendraBahadur Singh, her two sons, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and two daughters. There is also no dispute between the parties that the lands in dispute were covered by the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act) and that 4738 sq. metres thereof was liable to vest in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ224
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J.1. This judgment shall also dispose of Misc. Petitions Nos. 864 of 1992, 597 of 1992 and 908 of 1992.All these petitions raise a common question of law to be adjudicated by this Court as to whether the total ban imposed by the M. P. Krishik Pashu Parirakshan (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1991 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Amending Act') on the slaughter of certain species of cattle is permissible in view of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India which guarantees the petitioner's right to carry on any trade, business or profession of his choice and the law so made is saved by virtue of Article 19(6) of the Constitution. A further ancillary question arises whether such a ban imposed is in the teeth of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731.2. The Madhya Pradesh State Legislature first enacted Madhya Pradesh Krishik Upaj Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam, 1959 and after so many amendments, the Ame...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ834
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. This reference is made by one of us (S. K. . Dubey, J.) while hearing third bail application of the accused/applicant, arrested in connection with an offence under Section 8/18, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the 'Act', or NDPS Act. After hearing counsel, we framed following two questions which arise for our consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case :1. If for offence under Section 18, NDPS Act, charge-sheet is filed 90 days after the arrest of the accused, whether the latter will, as of right, be entitled to get bail from High Court?2. Under what circumstances, the High Court or the 'Special Court' can grant bail under Section 37, NDPS Act, to a person accused of an offence under Section 18 of the said Act if plea is raised by the accused in terms of Section 50 of the said Act?2. On 8-8-1991, the accused was apprehended while travelling in a bus with an attache case, on Agra-Bombay Road, near Shivpuri. From his...
Tag this Judgment!