Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2003CriLJ3301; 2003(2)MPHT289; 2003(2)MPLJ600
Rajeev Gupta, J.1. Appellant Prem Nepali @ Prem Bahadur stands convicted under Section 302, IPC with sentence of imprisonment for life, vide impugned judgment dated 30-11-91 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No. 201/88.2. The appellant has been found guilty of causing injuries on the right thigh of deceased Guddu @ Shahzad by means of knife, in the evening of 26-8-88, leading to his death the same night.3. At the trial, accused Prem Nepali @ Prem Bahadur abjured hisguilt and pleaded false implication to the charge framed by the Trial Court under Section 302, IPC.4. The charge of 'murder' against the accused was sought to be proved on the evidence of Bhole Shafiq (P.W. 1), Mohd. Nazir (P.W. 2), Dr. Abdul Hakeem (P.W. 3), Rameshwar Pandey (P.W. 4), Ram Palat Pandey (P.W. 5), Brijwasi Prasad (P.W. 6), Laxman Singh (P.W. 7), Dr. Suneet Kaur (P.W. 8), Dr. Daryav Singh Badkur (P.W. 9), J.P. Garg (P.W. 10), Abdul Majid (P.W. 11), Vishnu Prasad Tiwari (P.W. 12)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2005MP170; 2005(2)MPLJ353
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The present reference has arisen in a different factual matrix inasmuch as certain provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity 'the Act') that were incorporated by way of amendment into the aforesaid statute faced assail pertaining to their constitutional validity in the case of Jankidas Bairagi and Anr. v. State of M.P., 2001(2) M.P.H.T. 229, wherein a Division Bench declared the provisions under attack as constitutionally valid and dismissed the writ petition in limine, and thereafter when the present writ petition was filed challenging the enactment the same Division Bench issued notice and when the matter was placed for final hearing the Bench hearing the matter recorded a finding that the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners had a sanguine grievance with regard to a singular provision and had no cavil in respect of any other provision and accordingly thought it condign to recommend the matter to be referr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2000MP156
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. The present Election petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be a voter of Assembly constituency No. 83 Kotma to challenge the elections of the said constituency. 2. According to the petitioner, the Assem-bly Elections were notified as per the provisions of Section 31 of Representation of the People Act. According to the programme, the date for submission of the nomination form was 23-10-93 to 30-10-93. The date of scrutiny was 1-11-93. The date for the withdrawal was 3-11-93 and the date for polling was fixed on 24-11-93. The respondent No. 1 filed nomination as candidate of National Congress (I) for ihe Assembly Constituency, Kotma (No. 83). According to the petitioner she had filed the nomination paper and declared her name as Rajesh Nandini Singh wife of Dalveer Singh. As alleged the said name Rajesh Nandini Singh was not recorded in the voters list of the said Assembly for the year 1993. On the other hand, at serial No. 18 name of Rajesh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1981MP26; 1981MPLJ126
ORDERG.L. Oza, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the election to the Rajya Sabha held on 27-6-1980.2. According to the petitioner, he wanted to contest the election for the Rajya Sabha and for that purpose had filed the nomination paper. He filed his nomination paper on 23-6-1980 after depositing the security amount as required. According to him, on 25-6-1980 when the nomination papers were scrutinized the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground that it was not properly filled in as it did not bear the signature of the proposer. Order not filed with the petition.3. The only ground urged in this petition by the petitioner is that Section 33(1) of the Representation of the People Act which requires the nomination paper to be signed by one proposer who is an elector of the Constituency is unconstitutional as under Article 84 of the Constitution a citizen of India who holds the necessary qualifications prescribed in this article is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(3)MPHT392
ORDERS.C. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition challenging the order dated 14th January, 2009 (Annexure P-l) passed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 8 (5) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1961') terminating the services of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that she is a member of the Scheduled Tribe and she was appointed by virtue of a process of selection conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission for the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. The petitioner in compliance to the appointment order dated 10th January, 2006 submitted her joining on 23rd January, 2006 at Janpad Panchayat, Chachoda, District Guna and thereafter started working as the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Chachoda, District Guna. The petitioner has further stated that the Accountant of the Janp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(79)ECC518; 2001(4)MPHT101; 2001(3)MPLJ218
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. The petitioner who happens to be the wife of the detenu Lahiri Hariya is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Revenue Finance Department dated 14-11-2000 whereby by virtue of provisions of Section 3 of Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to for convenience as 'COFEPOSA Act'). Her husband Lahiri Hariya s/o Vasant Hariya r/o 23, Rajesh Nagar, Indore, has been detained. The petitioner mainly attacked the said order on following grounds:--(1) The order of detention has been passed after considerable delay. (2) All necessary and relevant documents have not been furnished to the detenu and it prevented the detenu from filing effective representation and that infringed his fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. (3) Though it was not demanded, it was the duty of the detaining...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2002MP98; 2002(2)MPHT10
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. The pivotal issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition preferred by a learned member of the Bar whether the members of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh are entitled to continue even after expiry of their term, as envisaged under the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said issue being cardinal and dominant, I shall only confine to the aforesaid issue as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents confined to the said facet, the singular and significant case.2. The facts which have been brought on record need not be dilated upon in detail, as the facts which are essential and necessitous for disposal of this writ petition have been conceded to by Mr. N.C. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh as well as for the Bar Council of India. None of the othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(5)MPHT42
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. The petitioners by these petitions are challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 143-A as framed by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. Rule 143-A of the Rules which prescribed 45 years as the maximum age for registration as an Advocate, has been challenged on the ground of unreasonableness and being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted in the petitions that the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh has no power, authority or jurisdiction to make such a Rule and on the ground that the rule is arbitrary and discriminatory as persons who have crossed the age of 45 years have been debarred from entering the profession simply on the ground that they have crossed the age of 45 years. It is also submitted by the petitioners that Rule 143-A as amended has no nexus with the mental level of a person to act, appear and plead for a client as an Advocate. It is further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1305
Kaul, C.J.1. This is an application purporting; to be made under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applicant Dayabhai Poonambhai Patel is a resident of Barwani. Prior to its integration with Madhya Bharat Barwani was an independent State governed by its Ruler styled His Highness the Maharana of Barwani. According to the applicant by an agreement dated 30-11-1947 His Highness the Maharana granted to him for the value of a consideration, a monopoly (sole right) for transport of passengers by motor buses within the State. One of the terms of the agreement was that no other buses or taxies except chose of the applicant would be allowed to ply on hire within (the State territory. That on 29-6-1948 the State of Barwani was merged in & became a part of the union of Madhya Bharat. This was effected in pursuance of a Covenant entered into on 22-4-1948 between the Ruler of Barwani & the Rulers of a number of other States in Central India This had the sanction of the then Govt. of India. The U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1985MP254
ORDERV.D. Gyanil, J. 1. This petition, filed on 10-9-1984. in this Court at Indore, has had a faster speed from the very begining as to reach at the stage of final hearing comparatively very soon, at the instance and insistence of the petitioner's counsel Shri K. L. Sethi, who saw to it that the matter was expedited for hearing as the petitioner was to retire on 31st July,1985. It was for this reason that the petition was expedited stage to stage so that a person in Government service on retirement may not have a grievance that he was not heard or that justice was not done to him. It was with this anxiety that the matter was taken up.2. But when the crop was ready for the sickle, the respondents came with an application (LA. No. 3047 of 1985) praying for dismissal of the petition, who could have otherwise resisted the decree of fate itself. The petition even in the midst of a final order, which was being dictated in the open Court on 23rd July, 1985, (up to a certain stage) in the abse...
Tag this Judgment!