Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965MP126; 1965MPLJ318
Sharma, J.1. By this petition under Section 491 (a) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner challenges the legality of his brother Santokhsingh's detention under an order passed by the District Magistrate, Raipur, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 read with the Government of Madhya Pradesh Home Department Order No. 33-4314/I-X(W)62, dated the 20th November, 1962.2. Although a number of grounds have been set out in the petition, the only ground which was pressed before us at the time of the hearing, was that the District Magistrate had not, at any time after the amendment of Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules under Notification No. G. S. Rule 1818, dated 28-l2-1962, been authorised to exercise on behalf of the State Government the power to detain any person with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the life of the comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1995MP210; II(1995)DMC461; 1995(0)MPLJ555
ORDER1. Revision petitioner is the husband of the respondent. They are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short). Revision petitioner filed an application in the lower Court under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Respondent herein appeared in Court in response to notice and filed an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance and provision for expenses. The application was opposedbut was allowed directing the revision petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month and to pay Rs. 500/- to enable the wife to meet the expenses of litigation. This order is now being challenged. We have heard learned counsel on admission.2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is not challenging the quantum of the award of the right of wife to make such a claim and he is confining his arguments only to one aspect, namely...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1992MP258
T.N. Singh, J. Yesterday Shri Lokendra Gupta was not before me. He is in this appeal respondent No. 2 and today he has argued his own case. Yesterday I heard Shri R. D. Jain, appearing for respondent No. 1, who fought valiently a lost cause. It was Yesterday itself that I told him about Gaurishankar, AIR 1927 PC 246, star which shines on Indian Judicial firmament. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not overruled that and has, on the other hand, reinforced that law --embodying a very fundamental principle of Hindu Law. 2. Today Shri J. P. Gupta who apears for the appellants, has tried to improve upon the performance of counsel of the appeal to which reference I had made in yesterday's order. In Vasudco v. Tikaram (F. As. Nos. 25/84 and 8/91 decided on 5-8-1991), as noted yesterday in this matter, I applied Gaurishankar (supra) and ordered retrial of the suit framing a specific issue, heeding the clear, unambiguous and clarion call of Gaurishankar (supra). On factual aspects, this appeal asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP187
T.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. The respondent Kishanlal had filed an application against the appellant Rukmanibai for divorce under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the Court of District Judge Indore. During the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant Rukmanibai filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendente lite and necessary expenses of the proceedings. This application was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Indore, on 29-8-1957 on the ground that the advantage of Section 24 of the Act is available only to a petitioner in the main proceedings. Hence this appeal.2. Shri Pande for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present appeal. He contends that under Section 28 of the Act, an appeal against an order rejecting an application under Section 24 is not tenable inasmuch as an appeal lies according to his interpretation of the section, against only those orders wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(3)MPHT103
A.P. Shrivastava, J.1. Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 9th July, 2001 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) and the Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in Special Case No. 6/2000, by which he has been convicted under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act')1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac; in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for two years.2. In brief, the story of the prosecution is that on 4.7.2000, Station House Officer D.S. Kushwah(P.W.8) P.S. Gwalior in the evening at Hazira Chowki got information that three persons on a Yamaha motorcycle bearing Regn. No. U.P.16-A-2932 are going from Jati Ki Line towards Morar and they are carrying opium beneath the seat of the vehicle. The information w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1973CriLJ98; 1972MPLJ1021
1. 21 persons were fried for murder of Sudarshan Prasad and Shitlaprasad and for causing grievous hurt to Narayan Prasad Tiwari, out of which 6 persons were acquitted. The remaining 15 accused have appealed against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149. Indian Penal Code and Section 147 Indian Penal Code. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquitted persons nor has any appeal been filed against the acquittal of the present appellants of the charges under Section 307 read with Section 149. Indian Penal Code.2. Facts leading to the Incident which eventually resulted in the death of Shitlaprasad and Sudarshan Prasad and injuries to Narayan Prasad Tiwari may be briefly stated. Khasra No. 40 in village Sathiha belonged to Wasudeoprasad (P. W. 21). He made a gift of half portion of the field to his son-in-law Narayan Prasad (P. W. 10). Narayan Prasad by a registered sale-deed dated 2.1.1967 sold the portion of the field gifted to him to appellant Lalman Kurmi f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP305
Naik, J.1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiff, a joint Hindu family firm, whose suit for damages, amounting to Rs. 11,301-3-6, for the lass suffered by it on account of late delivery of goods as also their deli-very in a deteriorated condition has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Balaghat, on the sole ground that the notices served by it on the respondent railway companies under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not legal and valid for the purposes. of the claim in suit.2. Seth Samrathmal and Seth Ratanchand are real brothers and they constitute the plaintiff joint Hindu family firm which is carrying on business at Balaghat under the name and style of 'Firm Dhanraj Samrathmal, Balaghat'.3. On 3-3-1950, one Maganlal Sualal booked a consignment of 123 bags of chillies, weighing 85 maunds, at Mandsaur, a railway station on what is now known as the Western Railway (then known as the Bombay Baroda and Central ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : II(1992)DMC266
V.D. Gyani, J.1. Both those appeals are closely inter-connected. They arise out of matrimonial dispute between the parties. Appellant Shakuntalafiled a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband respondentShivratan, who had filed a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The trialCourt while decreeing husband respondent's suit for divorce, dismissed wifeappellant's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. F.A. 47/88 is directed againstthe dismissal of suit for restitution of conjugal-rights, while appeal No. 46/88is against the judgment and decree of divorce dt. 23.6.1988 passed in CO.Section 3-A/86 by Addl. District Judge, Kukshi.2. Shri Barania, for the appellant and Shri Ahiwasi, for the respondentare heard.3. Appeal No. 46/88 is taken up first.Respondent husband filed a suit for divorce against the appellant on 2.1.86, in the Court of Addl. District Judge Kukshi.4. It is an admitted position that the parties were married at Indoreabout 10 years prior to the fili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(3)MPHT170
S.K. Kulshrestha, J1. These appeals assail the judgment dated 17-4-1996 of the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 409/1995, by which the learned Judge has convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, on three counts, for the murder of Sher Singh @ Bahadur Singh, his wife Ramaitri Bai and his son Ramji aged 11 months, and sentenced each of them to Imprisonment for Life thereunder. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The accused and the deceased were members of the same family. P.W. 2 Shanti Bai had two sons, accused Har Prasad and his younger brother deceased Sher Singh @ Bahadur Singh. Both the brothers were living in separate portions of the house, maintaining separate establishments. The family property had already been divided between the two except a portion of land measuring 3 acres, which P.W. 2 Shanti Bai had retained for herself. However, Har Prasad was not satisfied with the distribution of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP242; 1960CriLJ1093a
Naik, J. 1. The appellant (accused) Jcthuram has been convicted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Mst. Bundkunwar on 11th May, 1958, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. It is not disputed that Mst. Bundkunwar is dead and that she died of homicidal violence. Dr. Dube (P.W. 7), who performed the post-mortem examination, found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:'(1) An incised wound 2' x 1/2', spindle shape, on the left side of the chest, 3 1/2' above the nipple at the 10 o'clock angle. 2nd and 3rd ribs cut. Pleura and lung also cut. Blood clot present. Straight in direction. (2) An incised wound 2' x 1/4' x 1/4', transverse in direction, on the upper 1/3rd of the right side of the back. (3) An incised wound 1' x 1/2' x 1/4' just above injury No. (2), transverse in direction. (4) An incised wound 3 1/2' x 1/4' on the front part of the head on the left side, just above the middl...
Tag this Judgment!