Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ262
P.N.S. Chouhan, J.1. On 27-2-1984 Kali Bai, aged 16 years, was extensively burnt at about 7.00 A. M. in her husband's house at village Bijora Khamaria, Police Station, Nohta, District Damoh. She was removed to district hospital, Damoh where she succumbed to her injuries at 1.00 AM on 28-2-1984. On the allegation that appellant No. 1, Smt. Medabai, the mother-in-law of the deceased, in the presence of her son appellant No. 2 Kalyan Singh, poured kerosene oil on Kalibai and set her ablaze the appellants were tried on charge of murder. The trial Judge convicted appellant No. 1 under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and appellant No. 2 under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced both of them to imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 1-8-1985 passed in Sessions Trial No. 97/84 of the Court of 3rd Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Damoh, which is under challenge in this appeal.2. Kalibai was married with Charan Singh, the elder son of appellant No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ471
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. Two learned Judges of this Court who heard this petition, having disagreed on a vital question of constitutional import, this matter has come up before me to resolve the conflict, on an order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in that regard. The Presiding Judge (K. M. Agrawal, J.) has dismissed, by his order dated 26-3-1991, the writ petition holding that by efflux of time, the petition had become infructuous and further that in the changed circumstances, alternative remedy of civil suit was available. His Companion Judge (K. M. Pandey, J.), on the other hand, by his order dated 27-3-1991, held that the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition had no force and the petition should be heard on merits. Accordingly, the learned Judges recorded jointly the order that they had reached different conclusions in their separate orders on the preliminary objection about maintainability of the petition and as such the controversy needed to be resolve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ229
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. This is a petition by a Commissioned Officer of the Indian Army challenging the proceedings of Court-Martial initiated against him. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army on 14th December, 1958 as a Second Lieutenant. Gradually he rose to his present substantive rank of Brigadier. From Feb., 1988 to April 1989, he was posted at Agra as Commandant Para Regimental Centre. In April, 1989 he was given acting rank of Major General and was posted as General Officer Commanding Vth Mountain Division in Eastern Command.2. In July, 1989 the petitioner was called to Agra as a witness in Court Martial proceedings going on against one Major Mahapatra. He reported for this purpose on 13-7-1989 at Agra. After the petitioner left Agra in April 1989, Brig. Lognathan took charge as Commandant Para Regimental Centre at Agra. He reported certain financial irregularities and a Court of Enquiry was instituted to enquire into the financial irregularities in the Para Regiment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : II(1992)DMC486
V. Bhardwaj, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the convict appellant against his conviction Under Section 304B I.P.C. and the sentence of 7 year's R.I. imposed on him by the VIIIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore.2. The prosecution case is that on 11.8.87 one Ashok Kumar S/oSunderlal filed a F.I.R. that deceased Ushabai W/o Rameshwar had died because of burn injuries suffered by her. On investigation it was found thatUshabai was married to Rameshwar 3 years prior to the incident. Her husbandwas not treating her well and was demanding money for purchase of Luna byway of dowry. A case of dowry death was, therefore, registered and afterfurther investigation the accused/appellant Rameshwar was prosecuted on acharge Under Section 304B I.P.C. On trial the accused/appellant was convicted andsentenced as mentioned above.3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the appellant has filedthis appeal.4. Shri J.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellantsubmitted that the conviction is not ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ813
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. For selling adulterated goat-milk the petitioner suffered conviction under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short, the 'Act', and a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment besides fine of Rs. 1,000/-. He appealed unsuccessfully and is now in this Court challenging the verdict in this revision.2. Prosecution's case, shortly put, is that on 20-10-1983, at about 7.00 a.m., the petitioner was found carrying on a bicycle in a can, about 8 litres of goat-milk which he had brought for sale in Guna town. He was accosted by the Food Inspector, P.W.I at Choudhari Mohalla near Jain temple in Guna town and sample was taken of the milk in presence of witnesses, P.W.2, Bhanupratapsingh and P.W.3, Shivram. A Panchanama was prepared, proved as Ex.P/6, but other contemporaneous documents executed and proved as Exs.P/4 and P/5 are the statutory notices contemplated under form VI and the receipt of the sale-price paid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2135
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. For selling adulterated goat-milk, the petitioner suffered conviction Under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short, the 'Act', and a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment besides fine of Rs. 1,000/-. He appealed unsuccessfully and is now in this Court challenging the verdict in this revision.2. Prosecution's case, shortly put, is that on 20-10-1983, at about 7-00 a.m., the petitioner was found carrying on a bicycle in a can, about 8 litres of goat-milk which he had brought for sale in Guna town. He was accosted by the Food Inspector, P.W. 1 at Choudhari Mohalla near Jain temple in Guna town and sample was taken of the milk in presence of witnesses, P.W. 2, Bhanupratap-singh and P.W. 3, Shivram. A Panchanama was prepared, proved as Ex. P/6, but other contemporaneous documents executed and proved as Exs. P/4 and P/5 are the statutory notice contemplated under form VI and the receipt of the sale-pric...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ438
ORDERK.L. Issrani, J.1. The present revision petition is against the order dated 23-3-1991 passed by Smt. Beena Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Damoh in Criminal Case No. 139/91 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the private complaint filed by the non-applicant against the applicant. The applicant prays for quashing of the proceedings.2. According to the applicant, he is the resident of Ahmedabad-Gujarat. He is a businessman. He never visited Damoh and he does not know the non-applicant, Guruvachan Singh, and had never met him.3. The non-applicant has filed a complaint against the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Damoh on 23-3-1991 alleging that the applicant came to Damoh and wanted an amount of Rs. 60,000/- for his business purpose, which the applicant advanced after taking the post-dated cheque on 27-6-1990 in the presence of Ishwar Singh Vasu, with whom the applicant is said to have come and also in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992CriLJ895
ORDERK.L. Issrani, J.1. The present revision petition is against the order dated 23-3-1991 passed by Smt. Beena Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Damoh in Criminal Case No. 139/91 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the private complaint filed by the non-applicant against the applicant. The applicant prays for quashing of the proceedings.2. According to the applicant, he is the resident of Ahemadabad--Gujarat. He is a businessman. He never visited Damoh and he does not know the non-applicant, Guruvachan Singh, and had never met him.3. The non-applicant has filed a complaint against the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Damoh on 23-3-1991 alleging that the applicant came to Damoh and wanted an amount of Rupees 60,000/- for his business purpose, which the applicant (non-applicant?) advanced after taking the post dated cheque on 27-6-90 in the presence of Ishwar Singh Vasu, with whom the applicant is said to ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ159
ORDERK.L. Issrani, J.1. The present revision-petition is against the order 6-4-1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, in Criminal Case No. 688/1990, whereby the application of the applicant for releasing his truck on Supurtgi was rejected on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction.2. The truck in question was seized by the Forest Department on 8-12-1990 on account of carrying about 35 stones, which, according to the prosecution is a forest produce. But anyhow, the applicant was able to take away his truck from the custody of the forest Department. Therefore, on 8-12-1990, the Forest Department lodged a report in the police station, Raisen to this effect, which is Annexure-A-1. On this the police registered a case under Sections 353 and 186 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant.3. In this case, the applicant, along with other co-accused, was bailed out on 23-12-1990 but according to the applicant, on receiving oral requisition of the tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ173
ORDERR.D. Shukla, J.1. The petitioner is Deputy Divisional Manager posted at Balaghat and is an employee of the Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited, which is a Government Company within the meaning of Indian Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 3-6-1991 (Annexure P-5), whereby the District Returning Officer, Balaghat (respondent No. 1) has placed him under suspension and has issued him the Charge-sheet on 6-6-1991 (Annexure P-6). Allegations are that the services of the petitioner from the Corporation were requisitioned during General Election and the petitioner is alleged to have remained absent to discharge duties of a Presiding Officer during the last election.2. A show cause notice on admission was issued in this case, pursuant to which the respondents filed a joint return. With the consent of counsel for parties the case was finally heard and is being disposed of by this order.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of...
Tag this Judgment!