Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1942]10ITR60(MP)
This is an application under Section 66 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The Commissioner of Income-tax refused to state a case, The applicants case us that Chhedi Lal and Sons. On the 22nd July, 1934, he executed his last will, under which he gave a half share to his two sons Rikhi Lar and Shyam Sundar, and the other half to his three grandsons, Nand Kishore, Jamuna Prasad and Laxmi Narain, sons of his third son Barati Lal. In 1935 Chhedi Lal died and the legatees became owners of the business. These legatees did not take the property as members of a joint Hindu family but as legatees did not take the property as members of a joint Hindu family but as legatees in specific shares. They continued the business which is still going on. The assessment relates to the income of this business. Till 1937 these legatees did not take any steps to get the business registered under the Income-tax Act. On the 13th January. 1939, they applied for registration of the business under Section 26A of the...
Tag this Judgment!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 : AIR1950MP11; 1950CriLJ660
Mehta, J.1. Nine detenus, Shaligram, Narendra, Chunnilal Sukhdeo, Dashrath, Balkrishna, Badrilal, Harcharanlal & Kishanlal were arrested by Sub-Inspector Cube on 7th March 1949, Under Section 8 (1)(a), Madhya Bharat Maintenance of Public Order Act, Samvat 3005 and have been detained in Central Jail. The District Magistrate served the grounds on all the detenus on nth March except in the case of detenu Sukhdeo who was served with the grounds on 18th March 1919, Under Section 5 of the Aot. It was contended by Mr. Daji Homi that the grounds supplied Under Section 5 of the Act are not sufficient compliance with the mandatory provisions of 8 5. He further contended that the grounds supplied by the District Magistrate, District Indore to the detenus on 11th March 1049, are vague and the detenus are not in position to make representation without knowing the particulars of the grounds. He contended that the detenus are not in a position to know the grounds on which the order has been made agai...
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 : AIR1950MP23; 1950CriLJ742
ORDERMehta, J.1. The facts leading to this criminal revision are as follows: On 9th December 1948, some forty-one people belonging to R. S. S. led a procession. One of the arrested man was Waman Kuikarni, the present applicant. They were challaned under Notification No. 2fi dated 20th October 1930, which required previous per- mission of Inspector-General of Police before taking out a procession. Second count was contravention of Section 17, Criminal Law Amendment Act and 8. 188, Penal code. The accused applicant was convicted Under Section 17 (1), Criminal Law Amendment Act and for contravention of Notification No. 25, dated 20th October 1930, and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Hs. 75 on each counts and in default of fine 6 weeks further period of simple imprisonment the sentences to run concurrently. The conviction and sentence was passed by the District Magistrate, City Indore. The appeal preferred by Kuikarni to the Court of Sessions Judge, Indore, was reje...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950MP21; 1950CriLJ745
Sanghi, J.1. The accused appellant Jeetmal s/o Manchharam has been convicted Under Section 307, Penal Code, and sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment and fine of RSection 100 by the Sessions Judge Dewas Junior Branch. He has, therefore, preferred this appeal.2. The short facts of the case are as follows: The accused Jeetmal and Sidnath are real brothers. They live in the village KLiaria near Sarangpur. Fifteen years ago Sidhanath went to reside with his uncle. Sidhanath returned to the village Kharia and filed a civil suit in the Court of the Munsiff Sarangpur for partition of the joint family property against his brother Jeetmal. A preliminary decree for partition was passed by the Munsiff in favour of Sidhanath a month prior to the incident. It appears that on 5th october 1948 a final decree was passed for partition of the joint family property. Half share in the house in the village Kharia was handed to Sidhanath. On 8th October 1948 at about 4 A. m. when Mamlekhan, a polic...
Tag this Judgment!