Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 November, 2017
MCRC No. 8104/2017
"INDORE":- 07.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Ms. Mehul Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.2
prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Aiyer
MCRC No. 8656/2017
07.11.2017
Shri Vikash Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learend counsel for the State/
respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Aiyer
MCRC No. 4509/2017
07.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Aiyer
CRR No. 722/2017
"INDORE":- 07.11.2017
Shri Kaushal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned counsel for the state/
respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Aiyer
MCRC No. 687/2017
07.11.2017
Shri D.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned counsel for the state/
respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Aiyer
MCRC No. 501/2017
07.11.2017
Shri Omprakash Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned counsel for the state/
respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Aiyer
CRR No. 159/2017
07.11.2017
Shri Akshat Pahadia, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Aiyer
MCRC No. 12888/2016
07.11.2017
Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Aiyer
MCRC No. 12888/2016
07.11.2017
Shri Anopam Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned counsel for the State/
respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Aiyer
MCRC No. 10816/2016
07.11.2017
Shri Anopam Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned counsel for the State/
respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Aiyer
MCRC No. 7913/2016
07.11.2017
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned counsel for the State/
respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Aiyer
CRR No. 656/2017
07.11.2017
None for the petitioner.
In the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
CRA No. 4179/2017
07.11.2017
Shri Anopam Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for listing of the
matter in the next week.
Prayer is allowed.
List in the next week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.18599/2017
07.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a week time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after a week
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.19226/2017
07.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a week time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after a week
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
F.A. No. 714/2014
Ambaram Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
" INDORE" : 07.11.2017
Shri Anurag Vyas, Learned counsel on behalf of Shri P.M. Jain,
learned counsel for the appellant.
Earlier this matter has been listed before the Division Bench.
However, after recent amendment in the High Court Rules, it is now
listed before the Single Bench.
Heard.
The matter pertains to the land acquisitioned by the Government
for establishing Auto Testing Track in village Pipliya, Tehsil & District
Dhar.
Considering the fact that the issue involved in this First Appeal has
been decided by the Apex Court on 17.09.2015 in Civil Appeal Nos.
7261-7262 of 2015 (State of M.P. and Another Vs. Pratap), I, with the
consent of the parties dispose of this First Appeal at motion hearing stage.
While disposing of this appeal, I now quantify the compensation
that is required to be paid for the irrigated lands at Rs. 60,00,000/-
( Rupees Sixty Lacs. only) per hectare with all statutory benefits and
45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs. only) per hectare for un-irrigated
lands with all statutory benefits.
The State Government is directed to pay the difference of amount
within four months time from today without compelling the agriculturists
to file any execution petition before any Forum.
Accordingly, the present First Appeal stands disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Aiyer
ITA Nos. 22/2016, 23/2016, 25/2016, 26/ 2016,
27/2016, 28/2016, 29/2016, 30/2016, 31/2016,
32/2016, 33/2016, 34/2016, 63/2016, 64/2016,
65/2016, 66/2016, 67/2016, 68/2016, 69/2016,
74/2016, 75/2016 and 76/2016
Indore: dated:- 07.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by both the parties list the matters alongwith
the connected ITA Nos. 24/2016, 71/2016, 73/2016, 72/2016,
68/2016, 70/2016, 148/2016, 149/2016, 150/2016, 151/2016,
152/2016 and 153/2016 for analogous hearing in the last week
of November, 2017.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
Amit
MCRC No.19302/2017
03.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
As prayed, list after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
MCRC No.20278/2017
03.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List on Monday i.e. 06.11.2017.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
MCRC No.20213/2017
03.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List on Monday i.e. 06.11.2017.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
MCRC No.20177/2017
03.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned public prosecutor prays for time to produce the
case-diary.
Prayer is allowed.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
MCRC No.20052/2017
03.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned public prosecutor prays for time to produce the
case-diary.
Prayer is allowed.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
MCRC No.20063/2017
03.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned public prosecutor prays for time to produce the
case-diary.
Prayer is allowed.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
MCRC No.20031/2017
03.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned public prosecutor prays for time to produce the
case-diary.
Prayer is allowed.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
MCRC No.20045/2017
03.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned public prosecutor prays for time to produce the
case-diary.
Prayer is allowed.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
MCRC No.20025/2017
03.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned public prosecutor prays for time to produce the
case-diary.
Prayer is allowed.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
MCRC No.19956/2017
03.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned public prosecutor prays for time to produce the
case-diary.
Prayer is allowed.
List in the next week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
MCRC No.19298/2017
03.11.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two week time
to file the charge sheet.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
MCRC No. 10818/2017
03.11.2017
Shri Nitin......., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
After 11 year pendency of criminal trial under section 3/7
of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner has come
before this court for quashment of the proceedings on the
ground of inordinate delay in concluding the trial.
The petitioner himself has filed copy of proceedings of the
trial court which shows that the document also concluded of
early disposal of trial mentioned of long pendency of the trial in
the several orders proceedings.................... to secure presence
of the witnesses and accepted by the court last order sheet
dated 05.07.2017 reads thus..............
steps taken by the trial court are appropriate that trial
sanction long only on this ground proceedings cannot be
quashed but considering the nature of circumstances of the
facts only this proceedings cannot be quashed. The learned
counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgement of
Laxman V/s State of M.P. MPJJ CR. 967, It has been held that
sufficient opportunity is given to the prosecution to produce the
evidence but it failed therefore the present accused 75 year old
petitioner was facing trial over 20 years and was attending court
by covering a long distance the proceedings were quashed but
the facts of the present case......... therefore on this ground
proceeding cannot be quashed.
Considering the long pendency of the petitioner, prosecution is
directed to extent all possible assistance ..... witnesses with the
aforesaid in the present petition.
Petition is stand disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No. 8842/2017
01.11.2017
Shri Akshay Mantri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned counsel for the State/
respondent.
Let afresh notice be issued to the remaining respondent on
payment of P.F. within a week, returnable within two weeks.
List after two weeks alongwith service report.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.9726/2017
01.11.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a week's time
to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after a week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.9561/2017
01.11.2017
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two week's
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.9416/2017
01.11.2017
Shri Aproov Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a week's time
to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after a week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No. 8842/2017
01.11.2017
Shri Akshay Mantri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned counsel for the State/
respondent.
Let afresh notice be issued to the remaining respondent on
payment of P.F. within a week, returnable within two weeks.
List after two weeks alongwith service report.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.18897/2017
01.11.2017
Shri D.K.Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two week's
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No. 19681/2017
01.11.2017
Shri Gaurav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two week's
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No. 19581/2017
01.11.2017
Shri Durgesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a week's time
to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after a week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No. 18822/2017
01.11.2017
Shri Anand Swarnkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel fPor the petitioner prays for a week's time
to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after a week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No. 8825/2017
01.11.2017
Shri Raghvendra Singh Bais, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a week's time
to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after a week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.10442/2017
01.11.2017
Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Government Advocate prays for a week's time to
produce the case-diary.
Prayer is allowed.
List after a week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.18223/2017
01.11.2017
None for the petitioner.
In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.18262/2017
01.11.2017
None for the petitioner.
In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
CRA No.1661/2017
01.11.2017
None for the appellant.
In the absence of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
CRA No.4298/2017
01.11.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for a week's time
to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after a week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.17379/2017
01.11.2017
Shri Vinod Kumar Bhawsar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Government Advocate prays for a week's time to
produce the case-diary.
Prayer is allowed.
List after a week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.19508/2017
01.11.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a week's time
to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after a week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.19531/2017
01.11.2017
Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Government Advocate prays for a week's time to
produce the case-diary.
Prayer is allowed.
List after a week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.19559/2017
01.11.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two week's
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.19643/2017
01.11.2017
Shri Gaurav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for listing the
matter on 06.11.2017.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 06.11.2017.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.7022/2017
01.11.2017
Shri Akshat Pahadia, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a week's time
to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after a week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
MCRC No.17749/2017
27.10.2017
Shri S.D. Bohra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Government Advocate for
the non-applicant/State.
Case-diary is available.
At the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after one weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Praveen
CRA No.1807/2017
11.10.2017
Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
The appellant has filed this appeal for grant of leave to
appeal, but the office is wrongly registered it a regular criminal
appeal.
Office is directed to rectify the mistake and list the matter
properly.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
WA No.497/2017
13.10.2017
Shri M.K. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rohit Mangal, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
By impugned order dated 22.08.2017, learned writ Court
dismissed the writ petition on the ground that activity of sale of
fire crackers in thickly populated area in the middle of the city
has been found unsafe. Earlier, he was having license up to
2011. The Collector as well as the Commissioner have rejected
the prayer for renewal of license of the appellant. But, against
the aforesaid order, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed
and Collector was directed to decide the matter afresh.
Thereafter, learned appellate authority and license authority after
considering the facts and circumstances, came to the conclusion
that no case is made out and rejected the appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention
towards the deeming provision and submit that by fiction of law
he is entitled to run the shop. The aforesaid provision will
applicable during pendency of the renewal application, but here
renewal application is rejected, therefore, no such prayer can be
allowed looking to the deeming clause contained in Rule 112(5)
of the Explosive Rules, 2008.
Considering the aforesaid, no case, as prayed is made out.
Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his
godown is at some other place and at this stage his license of
shop is cancelled, therefore, he may be permitted to book the
crackers from godown which is having license.
If that be so, he file appropriate application before the
District Magistrate, who shall decide the same within two days
from its filing.
With the aforesaid, the present appeal is dismissed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
amit
CRA No.1807/2017
11.10.2017
Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
The appellant has filed this appeal for grant of leave to
appeal, but the office is wrongly registered it a regular criminal
appeal.
Office is directed to rectify the mistake and list the matter
properly.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.333/2001
11.10.2017
Shri A.S. Kutumbale, learned counsel for the appellant.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.119/2013
11.10.2017
Shri M.A. Bohra, learned counsel for the appellant.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.119/2013
11.10.2017
Shri M.A. Bohra, learned counsel for the appellant.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRA No.206/2014
11.10.2017
Shri M. Saxena, learned G.A. for the appellant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Appellant is absent.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for a fix date to
keep the appellant before this Court.
Time is granted.
List on 13.11.2017.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.1143/2014
11.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.91/2015
11.10.2017
Shri V. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri M.A. Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.474/2015 & CRR No.173/2015
11.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.691/2015
11.10.2017
Shri Ranjit Kalra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Manish Manana, learned counsel for the respondent.
List alongwith the connected CRR No.691/2015 for
analogous hearing.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.639/2015
11.10.2017
Shri Ranjit Kalra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Manish Manana, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant further prays for two
weeks time to file detail of payment as directed earlier.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.81/2016
11.10.2017
None for the appellant.
In the absence of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRA No.143/2016
11.10.2017
Shri R. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri P. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
Respondent Mohan Jaiswal is present in person.
Presence of the respondent is taken on record.
Respondent is directed to file fresh personal bond in the
some of Rs.25,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court till 13.11.2017. Thereafter,
the respondent is directed to mark his presence before registry
of this Court on 13..03.2018 and on all subsequent dates as may
be fixed by the registry in this behalf.
This is an admitted matter.
List in due course for final hearing.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.409/2016
11.10.2017
Parties though their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for further two
weeks time to file appropriate application.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks on any Wednesday.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.327/2015
11.10.2017
None for the appellant.
In the absence of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.1083/2016
11.10.2017
Shri M. Bhachawat, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.11227/2016
11.10.2017
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned G.A. for the petitioner/State.
Learned public prosecutor further prays for two weeks time
to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.72/2017
11.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.74/2017
11.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for two weeks
time to file reply.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCC No.159/2017
11.10.2017
None for the petitioner.
In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.361/2017
11.10.2017
None for the appellant.
In the absence of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.382/2017
11.10.2017
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned G.A. for the petitioner/State.
Learned public prosecutor further prays for two weeks time
to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
In the meantime, record of the trial Court be requisitioned.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.750/2017
11.10.2017
Mr. R. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. S. Joshi, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.5786/17, an application for condonation
of delay of 88 days in filing the present petition.
Considering the reason assigned in the application, the
casue shown by the petitioner is appears to be sufficient,
therefore, the applicant is allowed. Delay is condoned.
List for admission after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.9844/2017
11.10.2017
None for the petitioner.
In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.1222/2017
11.10.2017
None for the petitioner.
Defects as pointed out by the office has not been cured.
By way of indulgence, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.9287/2017
11.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitoner prays for list the matter
on 13.10.2017
Prayer is allowed.
List on 13.10.2017.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.10069/2017
11.10.2017
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Case diary is not available.
Learned public prosecutor is directed to keep the case
diary present on the next date of hearing.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.2764/2017
11.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for list the matter
on 13.10.2017.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 13.10.2017.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRA No.1350/2017
11.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for list the matter
on 13.10.2017/
Prayer is allowed.
List on 13.10.2017.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.17568/2017
11.10.2017
None for the petitioner.
In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.1039/2017
11.10.2017
None for the petitioner.
In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRA No.1668/2017
11.10.2017
Shri R. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned G.A. for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
In this case, the appellants have convicted for the offence
under Section (3) (1) (r) and (3) (1) (s) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act,
1989. In view of Sub-section (5) of Section 15-A of the Act,
before passing any order on the application for suspension of
sentence it is required to be noticed to the victim.
Office is directed to sent a notice to victim - Pappibai.
In the meanwhile, record of the trial Court be
requisitioned.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial
Court has already suspended the jail sentence till today. He
prays that interim order may be passed.
Prayer considered.
The appellants are directed to remain present before the
Trial Court on 11.10.2017 and the trial Court is directed to
extend the period of order for two weeks.
List after two weeks.
Certified copy today.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRA No.1164/2016
11/10/2017:-
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.19304/17 an application for condonation
of absence of respondent-Sanjay Songare.
Respondent is present in person before the Court and
identified by Shri M. Sharma, Advocate.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone
the absence. Accordingly, the I.A. No.19304/17 is allowed and
the absence is condoned.
Presence of the respondent is taken on record.
The respondent is directed to mark his presence on
12.03.2018 before the registry of this Court and on all
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
MCRC No.7259/2017
11.10.2017
Shri S. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.1125/2017
11.10.2017
Shri D.S. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.831/2016
11.10.2017
Shri Mohd. Imran, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.567/2016 & CRR No.829/2016
11.10.2017
Shri Mohd. Imran, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.460/12
11.10.2017
Shri R. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.347/2007
11.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.259/2007
11.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the apellant, the case
is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.123/2005
11.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.7515/2015
11.10.2017
Shri M.I. Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.6771/2016
11.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.754/2016
11.10.2017
Shri D. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.1143/2014
11.10.2017
Shri Y.P. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.3301/2017
11.10.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.1923/2017
11.10.2017
Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.979/2017
11.10.2017
Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
M.Cr.C. No.9785/2017
11/10/2017 :-
Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the
non-applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of
the present petition.
Prayer is allowed.
The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
MCRC No.9826/2017
11.10.2017
Shri D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.10036/2017
11.10.2017
Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
This is first bail petition under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking
bail in connection with crime No.223/2017 registered at Police
Station Betma, district Indore for the offence punishable under
Sections 307, 294, 506 and 37 of the IPC.
No other bail application either filed or pending before or
decided by any co-ordinate Bench of this Court or by Hon'ble the
Apex Court in connection with the present crime number.
As per the prosecution story, both the parties (complainant
and accused) are brothers and both are drum biters. In a
programme, some dispute was arise between them and annoyed
by the same, the applicant with other co-accused persons
assaulted by sword on the complainant and caused injury on the
head of the complainant. On medical examination, the injury was
found simple in nature.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the accused has falsely been implicated in the present case.
It is further submitted that no criminal antecedent is attributed
against the present petitioner and all the three co-accused
persons have granted bail by the trial Court. The accused is in
custody since 04.06.2017. The conclusion of the trial would likely
to take long time, hence prayed for release of the petitioner on
bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.
Considering the aforesaid and other facts and
circumstances of the case, I think it is a fit case to grant bail to
the petitioner. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is
directed that the petitioner/Rama be released on bail upon his
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned CJM for his appearance before the trial Court subject
to the following conditions:
(I) The petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall attend
the trial court during the trial.
(II) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly allure or
make any inducement, threat or promise to the
prosecution witnesses so as to dissuade them from
disclosing facts of the case before the Court.
(III) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or
involve in any criminal activities
(IV) In case any default in attendance before the Court or
involvement in any other criminal activities is found the bail
granted in this case may also be cancelled.
C.c as per rules.
M.Cr.C stands disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.10117/2017
11.10.2017
Shri D.K. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
This is first bail petition under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking
bail in connection with crime No.136/2017 registered at Police
Station Badgonda, district Indore for the offence punishable
under Sections 294, 323, 307, 326, 452 and 506/34 of the IPC.
No other bail application either filed or pending before or
decided by any co-ordinate Bench of this Court or by Hon'ble the
Apex Court in connection with the present crime number.
As per the allegations, on 05.08.2017, on sudden
provocation from the complainant, the accused assaulted and
inflicted injuries by an iron road on the head of the complainant.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the accused has falsely been implicated in the present case.
As per C.T. Scan report, no fracture was found and only a simple
heamatoma was found on the head of the complainant. It is
further submitted that no criminal antecedent is attributed
against the present petitioner and he is in custody since
09.08.2017. The conclusion of the trial would likely to take long
time, hence prayed for release of the petitioner on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer
submitting that the accused threatened the complainant, entered
into her house and struck directly on the head of an old 55 years
old lady, when her husband tried to save her than he also
assaulted him. Therefore, the case is registered under Sections
294, 323, 307, 326, 452 and 506/34 of the IPC and on medical
examination, the injury caused to Chenabai was found
dangerous to the life.
I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties
and perused the record.
Considering the evidence collected during investigation,
age of the complainant, nature of incident and injury caused to
the complaint by the accused person, I do not think it proper
case to release the accused on bail. Therefore, the present
petition is dismissed.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.10308/2017
11.10.2017
Shri Ansul Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for time to produce the
case diary.
Time is granted.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
M.Cr.C. No.10328/2017
11/10/2017 :-
Shri M. Manana, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the
non-applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of
the present petition.
Prayer is allowed.
The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
MCRC No.10441/2017
11.10.2017
Shri B.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.10628/2017
11.10.2017
None for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.10651/2017
11.10.2017
Shri B.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.1208/2017
11/10/2017:-
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Record of the trial Court is not received.
Office is directed to issue reminder for requisition of record
positively before 30.10.2017.
List on 30.10.2017.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
CRA No.4106/2017
11/10/2017:-
Shri S. Gehlot, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Record of the trial Court is not available and the same the
be requisitioned.
List thereafter alongwith the record of the trial Court.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
CRA No.539/2017
11/10/2017:-
Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel counsel for the
petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
CRA No.1789/2017
11/10/2017:-
Shri R. Yardi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri V. Khadot, learned G.A. for the respondent /State.
Case diary is not available.
Compliance of the provisions of Section 15 (a) of SC/ST
(P.A.) Act is not done. One week time is granted to the public
prosecutor for the same.
List after one week on any Wednesday.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
MCRC No.10775/2017
11/10/2017:-
Shri S. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri V. Khadot, learned G.A. for the respondent no.1/State.
Heard on the question of admission as well as on I.A. No.
9038/2017, which is an application for stay.
On payment of P.F. within a week, notices be issued to the
respondents on both count, returnable within four weeks.
List after four weeks alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
CRR No.1519/2016
11/10/2017:-
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel counsel for the
petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
CRR No.309/2017
11/10/2017:-
Shri A. Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri V. Khadot, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel counsel for the
petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
CRR No.694/2017
11/10/2017:-
Shri A.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri J. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for two weeks
time to file reply.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
CRA No.1264/2017
11/10/2017:-
Shri Vinod Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Virender Sharma, learned counsel for the
objector/complainant.
Shri Virender Khadot, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.6494/2017, an application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C.
Appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years
RI and fine of Rs.15,000/-with default stipulation.
According to the prosecution story, at the time of
demarcation of agricultural land, a sudden dispute was arise and
the accused thrown a stone and caused injuries to the
complainant. The complainant was treated in the private
hospital and as per the C.T. Scan report, three fractures were
found on his head, but C.T. Scan report was not proved before
the trial Court. Therefore, the learned trial Court has convicted
the accused/applicant as stated above.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the
trial appellant was on bail. He is in jail since 21.06.2017 i.e.
from the date of judgment. It is submitted that conclusion of
trial is likely to take some time and appellant has a good case in
appeal, hence jail sentence be suspended during pendency of
the appeal.
Learned public prosecutor as well as the learned counsel
for the complainant have opposed the prayer.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for
the appellant and considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and also the nature of incident, I am of the opinion that
appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.
Thus, the application (IA No.6494/2017) for suspension of
sentence is allowed. It is directed that on deposition of fine
amount and also on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before this Court/Registry on 20/02/2018 and on
all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in
this behalf, the execution of substantial jail sentence imposed on
the appellant/Papulal shall remain suspended, till the final
disposal of this appeal.
A copy of this order be sent to Court concerned for it's
compliance.
Let the matter be fixed for hearing on the question of
admission.
Certified copy today on payment of necessary charges.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
CRA No.1475/2017
11/10/2017:-
Shri R. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Virender Khadot, learned G.A. for the
respondent/State.
Record of the trial Court is not available and the same the
be requisitioned.
List thereafter alongwith the record of the trial Court.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
CRA No.1776/2017
11/10/2017:-
Shri S. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Virender Khadot, learned G.A. for the
respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
FA No.231/2000
10/10/2017:-
None for the appellant.
Shri Y. P. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for four weeks
time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
CRA No.528/2006
10/10/2017:-
Shri S. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri S. Joshi, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.8816/17 an application for condonation
of absence of appellant-Devilal.
Appellant is present in person before the Court and
identified by Shri S. Sharma, Advocate.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone
the absence. Accordingly, the I.A. No.8816/17 is allowed and the
absence is condoned.
Presence of the appellant is taken on record.
The appellant is directed to mark his presence on
12.03.2018 before the registry of this Court and on all
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
CRA No.512/2011
10/10/2017:-
None for the appellant.
As per the report, the appellant is detained in district jail
Jhalawad.
Let production warrant be issued against the appellant to
secure his presence before this Court on 16.01.2018.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
CRA No.1103/2013
10/10/2017:-
Shri Y.P. Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri S. Joshi, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.19058/17 an application for condonation
of absence of appellant-Raghuvendra Singh @ Babloo.
Appellant is present in person before the Court and
identified by Shri Rathore, Advocate.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone
the absence. Accordingly, the I.A. No.19058/17 is allowed and
the absence is condoned.
Presence of the appellant is taken on record.
The appellant is directed to mark his presence on
12.03.2018 before the registry of this Court and on all
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
CRA No.1493/2012
10.10.2017
None for the appellant/accused.
Shri S. Joshi, learned public prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Accused/Ravi produced by Shri B.S. Chouhan (A.S.I.), Shri
Baburam (R.371) and Shri Rakesh (R.162) from District Jail,
Indore, before the Court in place of Registry of this Court. Matter
is wrongly listed before this Court.
He is sent back to the concerned jail with the same escort
to keep him in custody for execution of remaining jail sentence.
List for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
CRA No.311/2014
10.10.2017
Shri S. Joshi, learned G.A. for the appellant/State.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.
respondent is absent.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for a fix date to
keep the appellant before this Court.
Time is granted.
List on 10.11.2017.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.532/2014
10.10.2017
None for the appellant.
Ms. V. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
Shri S. Ukas, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 prays for two
weeks time to file reply.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
@@@FA No.1196/2014
10.10.2017
Shri Virender Khadav, learned counsel for the
appellant/State
R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard on I.A. No.5447/2016, an application for compliance
of order dated 18.02.2016.
Even after almost two years, the State has not complied
with the order dated 18.02.2016 and no particular reason is
assigned for the delay.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted that 50% of
the award has already been deposited and prays for last
opportunity for depositing the rest of the amount.
Considering the aforesaid, prayer is allowed and by way of
indulgence, four weeks time is granted to the State to comply
with the order dated 18.02.2016.
With the aforesaid, I.A No.5447/2016 stands disposed of.
Also heard on I.A. No.5903/2017, an application for stay of
the award.
Vide order dated 18.02.2016, this court has dismissed the
application for stay filed by the State and directed to State to
deposit full amount as awarded by the learned reference Court.
Even after almost two years, the amount has not been
deposited by the State and the reason assigned in the
application is not sufficient to alter the order passed by this
Court on 18.02.2016.
After due consideration, the I.A. No.5903/2017 is
dismissed and the State is directed to deposit the amount within
four weeks.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRA No.1231/2014
10.10.2017
Shri Deepak Borasi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri S. Joshi, learned G.A. for the for the respondent/State.
Appellant is absent.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the
appellant-Samandar Singh, to secure his presence before this
Court on 12.12.2017.
List alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRA No.1485/2014
10/10/2017:-
Shri A. Chachondiya, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri S. Joshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.9159/17 an application for condonation
of absence of appellants-Bharat Singh, Ratan singh and Khushal
Singh.
All the appellants are present in person before the Court
and identified by Shri A. Chachondiya, Advocate.
It is submitted that the appellants have noted by mistake
date of appearance 10.02.2017, but on the date slip as
02.10.2017, therefore, they could not mark their presence before
the Registry as fixed by this Court.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone
the absence. Accordingly, the I.A. No.9159/17 is allowed and the
absence is condoned.
Bailable warrant issued against the appellants vide order
dated 11.04.2017, be recalled.
Presence of the appellants is taken on record.
The appellants are directed to mark their presence on
12.03.2018 before the registry of this Court and on all
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Amit
FA No.444/2015
10.10.2017
Shri D. Kale, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.S. Garg, learned counsel for the respondents.
Respondent No.14 has expired on 12.04.2017.
Let on payment of P.F. within a week, notices be issued to
the LR's of respondent no.14/Girish, Sharda Devi and Bhawna,
returnable within six weeks.
List after six weeks alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRA No.1608/2015
10.10.2017
None for the appellant.
Shri S. Joshi, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent /State.
Let issue bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
against the appellant No.2-Tejulal to secure his presence before
this Court, returnable on 12.122017.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.910/2017
10.10.2017
Shri V.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Julfa Sultana, learned counsel for the respondent.
After arguing at length, learned counsel for the respondent
prays for time as arguing counsel is not available.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
In the meantime, status quo shall be maintained.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.50/2017
10.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 prays for
time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
In the meantime, record of the trial Court be requisitioned.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.179/2017
10.10.2017
Ms. Ishita Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri P. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
As prayed, list alongwith the Connected matter FA
Nos.175/2017, 176/2017, 177/2017, 178/2017 and 179/2017 for
analogous hearing.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.299/2017
10.10.2017
Shri G. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for four weeks
time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.238/2017
10.10.2017
Shri G. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for four weeks
time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCC No.275/2017
10.10.2017
Mr. N. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. S. Joshi, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.5789/17, an application for condonation
of delay of 5 days in filing the application for restoration of WP
No.159/2017.
Considering the reason assigned in the application, the
same is allowed. Delay is condoned.
Arguments heard.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he could
not receive power from the company and the same could not be
filed, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed vide order dated
22.04.2017 in compliance of common conditional order dated
02.03.2017.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant
that now he has cured the defect and has already filed the
power before the Registry.
Considering the aforesaid and affidavit of learned counsel
for the applicant, I am of the view that the cause shown by the
applicant is sufficient to restore the case to its original number.
Prayer for restoration of WP No.159/2017 is allowed.
Writ Petition No.159/2017 be restored to its original
number.
With the aforesaid, this MCC stands disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
##CRR No.1265/2017
09.10.2017
Shri A.V. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri B.K. Sitole, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
Shri S. Joshi, learned G.A. for the respondent no.1/State.
Learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that
both the parties have amicably settled their issues.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the Principal
Registrar of this Court on 11.10.2017.
Learned Principal Registrar is directed to verify the factum
of compromise between the parties and submit the report on the
same day.
List on 11.10.2017.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.8634/2017
10.10.2017
Shri A. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner..
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for four weeks
time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.7000/2017
10.10.2017
Shri D. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner..
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for four weeks
time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.842/207
10.10.2017
Shri V. Panwar, learned counsel for the petitioner..
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for four weeks
time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.602/2017
10.10.2017
Shri M. Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks
time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRA No.514/2017
10.10.2017
Shri R. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time
to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.352/2013
10.10.2017
Ms. R. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time
to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRA No.895/2000
10.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time
to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MA No.2080/2012
10.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for four weeks
time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.583/2015
10.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time
to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRA No.499/2012
10.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for four weeks
time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.767/2015
10.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for four weeks
time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.412/2006
10.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time
to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.6624/2016
10.10.2017
Shri R. Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel with Shri V.K.
Assudani alongwith Ms. Ruchi Sahay, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri S. Joshi, learned public prosecutor for the respondent
no.1/State.
Shri Ashok Singh with Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for
the respondent no.2.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, the case
is adjourned.
List on 22.11.2017.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.11502/2016
10.10.2017
Shri R. C. Gangare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S. Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks
time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.12207/2016
10.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks
time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.12397/2016
10.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks
time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.1278/2017
10.10.2017
None for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCC No.254/2016
10.10.2017
None for the appellant.
Shri S. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent.
In the absence of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.518/2016
10.10.2017
Shri R. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.T. Thanewala, learned counsel for the respondent.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.518/2016
10.10.2017
None for the appellant.
In the absence of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.1279/2017
10.10.2017
Shri P.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S. Joshi, learned public prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Record of the trial Court is not available and the same be
requisitioned.
List thereafter alongwith the record of the trial Court.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.192/1997
10.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time
to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MA No.634/2017
03.10.2017
Shri V. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.101/2017
03.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.477/2017
03.10.2017
Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.719/2017
03.10.2017
Shri A.S. Bahrawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRA No.1187/2000
03.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.486/2002
03.10.2017
Shri M. Manana, learned counsel for the appellant.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
FA No.96/2012
03.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MA No.95/17
03.10.2017
Shri P. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.10478/2017
03.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.7614/2017
03.10.2017
Ms. S. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.6117/2017
03.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.5622/2017
03.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.1230/2017
03.10.2017
Shri G.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S. Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Call for the record.
Heard on IA No.8585/17, an application for suspension of
sentence.
Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the
judgment dated 06.09.2017 passed by ASJ, Bagli, district Dewas
in Criminal Appeal No.163/2016 whereby the learned appellate
Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of
conviction dated 16.02.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.116/12
by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagli, district Dewas
convicting the petitioner under section 411 IPC and sentencing
him to undergo RI for six month with fine of Rs.500/- and RI for
six months with fine of Rs.500/- with further default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Courts below have committed an error in appreciating the
evidence and convicting the petitioner. The petitioner was on
bail during trial as well as appeal and he never misused the
liberty granted by the court. The hearing of this petition would
likely to take long time, hence prayed for suspension of sentence
and release of petitioner on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/State opposed the prayer.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
the fact that petition is likely to take time for final hearing, the
application is allowed and the jail sentence alone passed against
the petitioner/Deepak shall remain suspended and the petitioner
is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20.11.2017 and
on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the
Registry during the pendency of this petition.
C.c as per rules.
List in due course alongwith the connected CRR
No.1182/2017 for analogous final hearing
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.9827/2017
03.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is available.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.9879/2017
03.10.2017
Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S. Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
This is first bail petition under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking
bail in connection with crime No.106/2017 registered at Police
Station Dahi, district Dhar for the offence punishable under
Sections 394, 34, of the IPC.
No other bail application either filed or pending before or
decided by any co-ordinate Bench of this Court or by Hon'ble the
Apex Court in connection with the present crime number.
As per the prosecution story, allegations against the
present petitioner and co-accused persons is that they have
stolen approximately 12 bags of wheat from the society and the
allegation against the present petitioner is that he was standing
near the society. The case was initially registered under Section
457 and 380 of IPC and later it was found that at the time of
carrying the stolen property, they beat the complainant -Ajay
who tried to stop them.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that no criminal antecedence is attributed against the present
petitioner and he is in custody since 31.08.2017. The conclusion
of the trial would likely to take long time, hence prayed for
release of the petitioner on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.
Considering the aforesaid and other facts and
circumstances of the case, I think it is a fit case to grant bail to
the petitioner. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is
directed that the petitioner/Abhishek be released on bail upon
his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned CJM for his appearance before the trial Court subject
to the following conditions:
(V) The petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall
attend the trial court during the trial.
(VI) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly allure or
make any inducement, threat or promise to the
prosecution witnesses so as to dissuade them from
disclosing facts of the case before the Court.
(VII) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or
involve in any criminal activities
(VIII) In case any default in attendance before the Court or
involvement in any other criminal activities is found the bail
granted in this case may also be cancelled.
C.c as per rules.
M.Cr.C stands disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.9893/2017
03.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is available.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.9966/2017
03.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is available.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.10009/2017
03.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is available.
Learned public prosecutor prays for two weeks time to
produce the criminal antecedent of the applicant.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.10520/2017
03.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is available.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after one weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
#MCRC No.5523/2017
03.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Matter is wrongly listed.
Office to verify and list the matter before the appropriate
Bench.
List after three weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
MCRC No.5523/2017
03.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Matter is wrongly listed.
Office to verify and list the matter before the appropriate
Bench.
List after three weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.996/2017
03.10.2017
None for the petitioner.
In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.1052/2017
03.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioner
prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
CRR No.1249/2017
03.10.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
amit
M.Cr.C.No.10537/2017
03.10.2017
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Government Advocate
for the respondent/State.
Heard.
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner assailing the order of learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Javad, District Neemuch dated 21/09/2017 passed in S.T. No.11/2017, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91, 92 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 65 of I.T. Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that Call Details of Mobile Nos.9993959993, 9685363382, 7049142130, 7049142026, 7049142021, 9479995481, 9993314254, 9425123597, 7049142024, 7049142087, 9424094224, 9406866624, 9993314254, 7049142188 and 94799994814 must be preserved, as record may be required for adducing his defence and also on the ground that such details are destroyed after lapse of one year. According to the petitioner, he wants to prove location of the concerning police personnel at the time of incident.
3. Learned trial Judge dismissed the application observing that these details are not necessary and he can prove his defence by cross-examining the concerned police personnel.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties.
5. In view of the allegation made in the complaint, the application is partly allowed. It is directed that learned Trial Judge shall send the intimation to the concerning Company to preserve the record of the Calls made by and on the Mobile numbers as mentioned above, also their locations on the relevant point of time.
6. The application is accordingly disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.10642/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.3794/16 27/09/2017 :-
Shri D. Gurjar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.10263/17 27/09/2017 :-
Shri B. Deshmukh, learned public prosecutor for the petitioner/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.19/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Shri J.S. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.2658/17 27/09/2017 :-
Shri A. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.68/2016 27/09/2017 :-
Parties thorough their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit FA No.1270/2014 27/09/2017 :-
Parties thorough their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit FA No.131/1998 27/09/2017 :-
Parties thorough their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.290/2016 27/09/2017 :-
Parties thorough their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.9209/17 27/09/2017 :-
Parties thorough their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.8534/17 27/09/2017 :-
Parties thorough their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.8065/17 27/09/2017 :-
Parties thorough their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.7296/17 27/09/2017 :-
Parties thorough their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.6043/17 27/09/2017 :-
Parties thorough their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.5582/17 27/09/2017 :-
Shri A. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.4509/17 27/09/2017 :-
Shri M.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.1170/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.950/2014 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.1600/17 27/09/2017 :-
Shri M.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.1061/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.843/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.806/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.328/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.196/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.28/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.1555/2016 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.1276/2016 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.1119/2016 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.723/2016 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.619/2016 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.1318/2014 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.1695/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.9390/2017 27/09/2017 :-
None for the petitioner.
In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.585/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Shri N. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Service report is awaited. List alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.661/2017 27/09/2017 :-
None for the petitioner.
Notice issued to the respondent is received unserved. Let fresh notice be issued to the respondent, on payment of P.F. within a week, returnable within six weeks.
List after six weeks alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.943/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Shri K.C. Kabra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.7040/2017, an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C.
Appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI and fine of Rs.5,00/-with default stipulation.
According to the prosecution story on 03.06.2015, at about 4:00 P.M., in Prajapat Mohalla, District Mandleshwar, when the children (Ku. Deepali and Krishan) were going on the shop, the old wall of house of the present accused tumbled on them and in the result, they both were found died. Therefore, the trial Court has convicted the accused/applicant as stated above.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the trial appellant was on bail and sentence is also suspended till tomorrow. He is in jail since 11.07.2017 i.e. from the date of judgment of the appellate Court. It is submitted that conclusion of trial is likely to take some time and appellant has a good case in appeal, hence jail sentence be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
Learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the nature of incident, I am of the opinion that appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence. Thus, the application (IA No.7040/2017) for suspension of sentence is allowed. It is directed that on deposition of fine amount and also on furnishing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 20/02/2018 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf, the execution of substantial jail sentence imposed on the appellant/Jagannath shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
A copy of this order be sent to Court concerned for it's compliance.
Let the matter be fixed for hearing on the question of admission.
Certified copy today on payment of necessary charges.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.1094/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to file copy of the charge-sheet.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.1219/17 27/09/2017 :-
Shri P.K. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of P.F. within a week, notice be issued to the respondent, returnable within six weeks.
List after six weeks alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit ##MCRC No.3877/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.4071/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Shri A. Bhatiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.4625/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.5092/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit ###MCRC No.10129/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the non-applicant/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.468/17 registered at Police Station- Mhow, District-Indore for the offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of M.P. Excise Act. No other bail application is filed, pending or decided by any other Court, by this Court or before the Hon'ble Apex Court in connection with the present crime number.
According to the prosecution, approximately 63 bulk liters of plain illicit liquor was seized from the possession of the present applicant.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case, as he is innocent and there no case is made out against him. He is in jail since 07.09.2017. It is further submitted that conclude of the trial may take it's own time and there is no possibility of absconding of applicant and also there is no criminal antecedents attributed to him, therefore, he may be released on bail.
Prosecution has opposed the bail application.
Keeping in view of the aforesaid and in the facts and circumstances of the case and also the quantity alleged to have been seized from the possession of the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for granting bail. Thus, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant/Trilokchand be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the trial court as and when required with the following directions :-
(i) The applicant shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend the trial Court during the trial;
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts of the Court;
(iii) The applicant shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities;
(iv) In case, involvement in any other criminal activities is found, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.
C.C. as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit ##MCRC No.10573/17 27/09/2017 :-
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a fix date to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 09.10.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.1668/2017 27.09.2017 Shri R. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission. In this case, the appellant has convicted for the offence under Section (3) (1) (r) and (3) (1) (s) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989. In view of Sub-section (5) of Section 15-A of the Act, before passing any order on the application for suspension of sentence it is required to be noticed to the victim.
Offeice is directed to sent a notice to victim - Pappibai. In the meanwhile, record of the trial Court be requisitioned.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has already suspended the jail sentence till today. He prays that interim order may be passed.
Prayer considered.
The appellants are directed to remain present before the Trial Court on 03.10.2017 and the trial Court is directed to extend the period of order for two weeks.
List after two weeks.
Certified copy today.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRR No.1187/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Shri A. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on IA No.8595/2017, an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C.
Appellant/accused are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo 3 months R.I. and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-with default stipulation.
According to the prosecution story the accused has borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondent and assured him to repay the same as early as possible. Later on, he paid a Cheque No.150781 dated 09.06.2010 drawn on SBI, Indore but the same was dishonoured with a note of "Fund Insufficient". Therefore, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the trial appellant was on bail and sentence is also suspended till tomorrow. He is in jail since 19.09.2017 i.e. from the date of judgment of the appellate Court. It is submitted that conclusion of trial is likely to take some time and appellant has a good case in appeal, hence jail sentence be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the nature of incident, I am of the opinion that appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence. Thus, the application (IA No.8595/2017) for suspension of sentence is allowed. It is directed that on deposition of fine amount and also on furnishing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 20/02/2018 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf, the execution of substantial jail sentence imposed on the appellant/Ajay Shukla shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
A copy of this order be sent to Court concerned for it's compliance.
Certified copy today on payment of necessary charges. List thereafter.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9783/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Shri A. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the non-applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to surrender before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
With the aforesaid liberty, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.10182/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Case diary is not available. Learned public prosecutor prays for two weeks time to produce the case diary.
Time is granted.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.10329/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.8450/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.8703/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.8771/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Shri G.S. Desai, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the non-applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition.
Prayer is allowed.
The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.9811/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned public prosecutor further prays for two weeks time to comply with the order dated 20.09.2017.
Time is granted.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.9815/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file statements of the witnesses recorded before the trial Court.
Time is granted.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.9961/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Case diary is not available. Learned public prosecutor prays for two weeks time to produce the case diary.
Time is granted.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.10016/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.10087/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit ###MCRC No.10201/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.10280/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.10328/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit ##CRR No.928/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Shri V. Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.6932/2017, an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C.
Appellant/accused are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI and fine of Rs.5,00/-with default stipulation.
According to the prosecution story on 21.07.2012, at about 8:00 P.M., when the prosecutrix was coming back after natural call, the appellant came there and caught hold her hand and when she opposed and screamed, he threatened her to kill her and ran away.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the trial appellant was on bail and sentence is also suspended till tomorrow. He is in jail since 17.07.2017 i.e. from the date of judgment of the appellate Court. It is submitted that conclusion of trial is likely to take some time and appellant has a good case in appeal, hence jail sentence be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
Learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the nature of incident, I am of the opinion that appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence. Thus, the application (IA No.6932/2017) for suspension of sentence is allowed. It is directed that on deposition of fine amount and also on furnishing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 20/02/2018 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf, the execution of substantial jail sentence imposed on the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
A copy of this order be sent to Court concerned for it's compliance.
Let the matter be fixed for hearing on the question of admission.
Certified copy today on payment of necessary charges.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.10394/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Shri Surender Tuteja, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the non-applicant/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.266/17 registered at Police Station- Excise Department, District-Dewas for the offence punishable under Section 34(1) (a) and 34 (2) of M.P. Excise Act. No other bail application is filed, pending or decided by any other Court, by this Court or before the Hon'ble Apex Court in connection with the present crime number.
According to the prosecution, approximately 106.2 bulk liters of foreign made illicit liquor was seized from the possession of the present applicant.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case, as he is innocent and there no case is made out against him. It is further submitted that conclude of the trial may take it's own time and there is no possibility of absconding of applicant and also there is no criminal antecedents attributed to him, therefore, he may be released on bail.
Prosecution has opposed the bail application.
Keeping in view of the aforesaid and in the facts and circumstances of the case and also the quantity alleged to have been seized from the possession of the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for granting bail. Thus the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant/Sanjay Yogi be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the trial court as and when required with the following directions :-
(i) The applicant shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend the trial Court during the trial;
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts of the Court;
(iii) The applicant shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities;
(v) In case, involvement in any other criminal activities is found, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.
C.C. as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.10468/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Case diary is not available.
Learned public prosecutor prays for two weeks time to produce the case diary.
Time is granted.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.10473/2017 27/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Case diary is not available. Learned public prosecutor prays for two weeks time to produce the case diary.
Time is granted.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.1802/2013 27.09.2017 None for the appellant/accused.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Accused/Bharat @ Bharat Singh produced by Shri G. Maskole (A.S.I.), Shri Premnarayan (H.C. 416) and Shri Radheshyam (Constable 659) from District Jail, Shajapur, before the Court in compliance of the warrant issued against him vide order dated 18.08.2017.
He is sent back to the concerned jail with the same escort to keep him in custody for execution of remaining jail sentence.
List for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.197/2017 26/09/2017 :-
Shri Gagan Bajad, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.929/2017, an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C., awarded vide judgment dated 16.01.2017 passed in S.T. No.8/16 by 3 rd ASJ, Indore.
The applicant is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and under Section 5L/ 6 of POCSO, Act, 2012 and in view of the provisions of Section 71 of IPC the learned trial Court awarded sentence for the greater offence i.e. under Section 366 of IPC for 5 years imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation and under Section 6 of POCSO, Act sentenced him for 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that considering the age of the prosecutrix and evidence available on record shows that the prosecutrix was major at the time of the incident. Moreover, the prosecutrix has admitted herself that she is major. She further admitted that the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhar Card produced by the prosecution was not exact. It was just a guess. She admitted that she did not know her exact date of birth. She was doing labour work which shows that she was major at the time of incident. Learned trial Court has erred in considering the statements of the prosecutrix false on one hand and reliable on the other. The prosecutrix was acquainted with the accused. There was no evidence of threatening the prosecutrix. The learned trial Court committed error in not appreciating the fact that there was no direct evidence available on record. The learned trial Court failed to consider the contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The appeal is likely to take long time for final disposal, therefore, the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court may be suspended.
The learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. The prosecutrix has deposed on oath before the learned trial Court that the accused asked her to come with him, took her to Khajrana Temple and thereafter to a room and later to Dewas. At both the time, he committed rape with her. The trial Court appreciated the evidence regarding age of the prosecutrix in para nos.4 to 7 and found that she was minor at the time of the incident.
Considering the evidence, particularly, the age of the proseuctrix and evidence regarding her age, I do not think it a fit case to suspend the sentence, therefore, the application (IA No.929/2017) is dismissed.
List for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.6586/2013 26/09/2017 :-
Shri S.D. Bohra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Government Advocate for the non-applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to file afresh, if occasion arise.
Prayer is allowed.
With the aforesaid liberty, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.782/2017 26/09/2017:-
Shri A. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Service report of the respondent received with a note that no office is found at the address given by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file fresh P.F. within two weeks with correct address, therefore, fresh notice be issued to the respondent, returnable within four weeks.
List after four weeks alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.2747/2016 26/09/2017:-
None for the petitioner.
In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.1145/2001 26/09/2017:-
Shri M.I. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.8651/17 an application for condonation of absence.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on 17.04.2017 the appellant was in jail in connection with conviction and sentence awarded in CRA No.540/2016 by Sessions Court, District Ujjain. Therefore, he could not mark his presence before this Court and he is still in jail. On 26.06.2017, the accused was called through production warrant and he was sent back to the jail after marking his presence before this Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused has now completed his sentence awarded in CRA No.540/2016, but he is not being released by the jail authorities due to production warrant issued by this Court.
No coercive porches has been issued against the accused and in this case, his sentence is already suspended.
Considering the aforesaid reason assigned for non- appearance, it appears that cause shown by the appellant is sufficient to condone the absence, therefore, the application is allowed.
The jail authorities be intimated that in this case, the sentence of the accused is already suspended, if he is not required in connection with any other case than he be released from the jail.
The appellant is directed to mark his presence before this Court on 26.03.2018.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit FA No.147/2011 26/09/2017:-
Shri N.P. Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri H. Wadnerkar, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.2836/16 an application for taking the LR's of respondent no.1/Kamlabai on record.
Application is within limitation.
Considering the factum of death of respondent no.1/Kamlabai, the application is allowed.
The appellant is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the cause title of the appeal within four weeks.
This is an admitted appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.1012/2011 26/09/2017:-
Shri Z. Ali, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.8995/17 an application for condonation of absence of appellant-Sitare Mia.
Appellant/ Sitare Mia is present in person before the Court and identified by Shri Z. Ali, Advocate.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone the absence. Accordingly, the I.A. No.8995/17 is allowed and the absence is condoned.
Presence of the appellant is taken on record.
The appellant is directed to mark his presence on 19.03.2018 before the registry of this Court and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.1222/2012 26/09/2017 :-
Shri P.K. Pandagre, learned counsel on behalf of Shri Sameer Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State. The petitioner/accused is not present before this Court, therefore, I.A. No.8989/17 an application for condonation of absence is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a fix date to keep the appellant present before this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 26.10.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.971/2014 26/09/2017 :-
Ms. Mehul Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for a fix date to keep the appellant present before this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 26.10.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.2012/2014 26/09/2017 :-
Shri P.K. Sohani, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for a fix date to keep the appellant present before this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 26.10.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.1501/2014 26/09/2017:-
Shri A. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.8707/17 an application for condonation of absence of appellant-Sanjay.
Appellant/Sanjay is present in person before the Court and identified by Shri A. Vyas, Advocate.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone the absence. Accordingly, the I.A. No.8707/17 is allowed and the absence is condoned.
Presence of the appellant is taken on record.
The appellant is directed to mark his presence on 19.03.2018 before the registry of this Court and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.251/2016 26/09/2017 :-
Shri R. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State. Record of the trial Court is not available, the same be requisitioned.
List thereafter alongwith the record.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit FA No.832/2016 26/09/2017:-
Shri A. Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned public prosecution submits that he could not receive the reply from the concern authority and prays for two weeks time to.
Prayer is allowed.
In the meantime, office is directed to verify whether the court fees is payable by the appellant in this case or not.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit FA No.835/2016 26/09/2017:-
Shri C. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.5508/17 an application for modification of order dated 09.08.2017.
Vide order dated 09.08.2017, an I.A. No.3263/2017 for service of notice of respondents was allowed, but by typographical error in the order, it is mentioned that service of respondent nos.1 to 4, was directed to make effective by publication. The mistake is parent from the record, therefore, the application is allowed.
It is directed to comply with the order of this Court dated 09.08.2017 only with respect to the respondent no.4.
With the aforesaid direction, rest of the direction of the Court will be remained the same.
List alogwith the service report.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.1007/2016 26/09/2017:-
Shri P. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.8988/17 an application for condonation of absence of appellant-Mohan Singh.
Appellant/ Mohan Singh is present in person before the Court and identified by Shri P.Patel, Advocate.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone the absence. Accordingly, the I.A. No.8988/17 is allowed and the absence is condoned.
Presence of the appellant is taken on record.
The appellant is directed to mark his presence on 19.03.2018 before the registry of this Court and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.1266/2016 26/09/2017:-
Shri D. Borasi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.8994/17 an application for condonation of absence of appellant-Manohar Chouhan.
Appellant/ Manohar Chouhan is present in person before the Court and identified by Shri D. Borasi, Advocate.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone the absence. Accordingly, the I.A. No.8994/17 is allowed and the absence is condoned.
Presence of the appellant is taken on record.
The appellant is directed to mark his presence on 19.03.2018 before the registry of this Court and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.3127/2016 26.09.2017 Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. There is a defect in payment of P.F. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for one weeks time to file P.F. Prayer is allowed.
On payment of P.F. issue notice to the respondent as directed earlier order dated 22.4.2017.
List alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.3811/2016 26.09.2017 Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit FA No.37/2017 26.09.2017 None for the appellant.
Shri A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5 and 7.
None for the respondent no.6 though duly served. In the absence of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.10034/2017 26.09.2017 None for the petitioner.
In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week on any Wednesday.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.10410/2017 26.09.2017 Parties through their counsel.
As prayed, list alongwith the connected MCRC No.10441/2017 for analogous hearing.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MA No.417/2012 25.09.2017 The report submitted by the cause-list Section dated 23.09.2017 and affirmed by Dy. Registrar and thereafter by Principal Registrar is perused.
Cause list Section In-charge has only submitted explanation as to why the case has been listed 19 times for hearing on I.A No.6430/2012, as the same has not been disposed of by the Court. But, no explanation is submitted on the direction that I.A. No.6430/12 was missing from the record and the direction was given vide order dated 13.07.2016 to trace out the same and place on record, had not been complied with even after a period of one year.
Principal Registrar is directed to enquire into the matter and submit a report within two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge MCRC No.1278/2017 25.09.2017 Shri V.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V. Saraf, learned counsel for the respondent. As prayed, list on 27.09.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.6089/2014 25.09.2017 Parties thorough their counsel. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.11015/2016 & MCRC No.9324/2016 25/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. List alongwith the connected MCRC No.9257/2016 for analogous hearing.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.9257/2016 25/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Case diary is not available. List after two weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.489/2000 25/09/2017 :-
None for the appellant.
Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent /State. Let issue bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- against the appellant-Bharat @ Bhartiya to secure his presence before this Court, returnable on 24.11.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.908/2010 25.09.2017 None for the appellant.
Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent /State. List alongwith the connected CRA No.813/2010 for analogous hearing.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRA No.813/2010 25/09/2017 :-
None for the appellant.
Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent /State. Let issue bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- against the appellant -Vijay to secure his presence before this Court, returnable on 24.11.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.363/2002 25.09.2017 None for the appellant.
Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent /State. List alongwith the connected CRA No.694/2000 for analogous hearing.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRA No.694/2000 25.09.2017 None for the appellant.
Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent /State. Let issue bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- against the appellant- Chhagan to secure his presence before this Court, returnable on 24.11.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit FA No.327/2015 25.09.2017 Parties thorough their counsel. At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit FA No.91/2015 25.09.2017 Shri V.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that reply is ready and prays for time to file the same.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRA No.1138/2014 25.09.2017 Shri V. Saraf, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent /State. List alongwith the connected matter CRA No.1137/2014 for analogous hearing.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRA No.1137/2014 25.09.2017 Shri V. Saraf, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent /State. Report regarding death of appellant no.2/Nahru Khan is awaited.
List after four weeks alongwith the report.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit FA No.294/2014 25.09.2017 Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRA No.388/2014 25.09.2017 None for the appellant.
Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent /State. Let issue bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- against the appellant- Bhamru to secure his presence before this Court, returnable on 24.11.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRA No.940/2013 25/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. List alongwith the connected CRA No.388/2014 for analogous hearing.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.789/2011 25/09/2017:-
Shri P. Sohani, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.8944/17 an application for condonation of absence of appellant no./Rekha.
Appellant/Rekha is present in person before the Court and identified by Shri P. Sohani, Advocate.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone the absence. Accordingly, the I.A. No.8944/17 is allowed and the absence is condoned.
Presence of the appellant is taken on record.
The appellant is directed to mark her presence on 19.03.2018 before the registry of this Court and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
Also heard on I.A. No.8943/2017, an application for recalling of bailable warrant issued against the appellant no.1/Rekha.
It is submitted that she is illiterate woman and residing in remote village, therefore, she could not mark her presence before the Court on 09.08.2017 and on the next date of hearing on 11.08.2017, the her counsel could not appear, therefore, the court has issued bailable warrant against her.
Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed.
The bailable warrant issued by this Court, vide order dated 11.08.2017 against the appellant/Rekha, be recalled.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCC No.429/2015 25/09/2017 :-
Shri N. Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant. Service report of respondent nos.4 and 5 is awaited. List alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.1512/15, CRR No.1513/15 & CRR No.1499/15 25/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. List alongwith the connected CRR No.1500/2015 for analogous hearing.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.1500/2015 25/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. Record of the trial Court is not available. List thereafter alongwith the record of the trial Court.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.163/2016 25/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. List alongwith the connected MCRC No.11331/2015 for analogous hearing.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.11331/2015 25/09/2017 :-
Shri Gulab Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent no.1/State.
Shri G.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that omission of mentioning the fact regarding receiving of Rs.12 lacs in the subsequent FIR is on the part of the police. He has mentioned all the facts in his application, therefore, no fault can be attributed to the respondent in the aforesaid omission.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit FA No.81/2016 25/09/2017 :-
Shri K. Mandloi, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent.
In the absence of learned counsel for the respondent, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.368/2017 & CRR No.266/16 25/09/2017 :-
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Manuraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for both the parties prays for time to seek instructions from their respective parties.
List both the matter together after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.965/2016 25/09/2017 :-
Shri Y.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Seema Maheshwary, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent made a statement at Bar that the accused has deposited full amount of Rs.40,000/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue on the question of maintainability of the petition.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.840/2016 25/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. List alongwith the connected matter CRR No.965/2016 for analogous hearing.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.1069/2016 25/09/2017 :-
Shri G.K. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for a fix date to keep the appellant present before this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 25.10.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.10466/2017 25/09/2017 :-
Shri Amit Bhatiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Earlier two times P.F. has paid, but service could not make effective due to incorrect address.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays four weeks time to verify the address and thereafter to file fresh P.F..
Time is granted.
If the P.F. is filed within four weeks with correct address than notices be issued to the respondent, returnable within four weeks.
List after four weeks alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.10013/2017 22/09/2017 :-
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter.
Time is granted.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.10013/2017 22/09/2017 :-
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Bhikangaon, District Khargone in Cr.R.No.13/17 dated 19.07.2017 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision filed by the present applicant against the order of the Magistrate in Crime No.82/2017 dated 15.05.2017 by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the applicant for obtaining vehicle no. HR 55 N 5546 on interim custody.
2. Facts in brief are that on 22.03.2017, on an information received in the Police Station, the Police seized Container bearing Registration No. HR 55 N 5546, in all 41 cow progeny and out of which 3 cows and 3 oxes were found died. They were being transported to Maharashtra for the purpose of slaughtering. The Police registered a crime, seized the truck and the cow progeny as stated above confiscation proceedings were started by the Collector.
3. The petitioner filed application for releasing the container being owner of the container stating that he is unaware of the act of the driver. He further submitted that he was not present at the time of the seizure also.
4. The prayer is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate.
5. Both the Courts below have rejected the application and the revision on the ground that confiscation proceeding has been started by the Collector of the District and the fact was informed to the trial Court vide letter dated 28.03.2017.
6. It is submitted by the learned G.A. that confiscation proceedings are still pending till date.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is registered owner of the Container bearing Registration No. HR 55 N 5546 seized by the Police for the charges alleged and mentioned in para 1 above.
8. The question involved in this petition as to whether the vehicle seized on the charges under the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 can be released inspite of the pendency of the confiscation proceedings before the District Magistrate/Collector has already been settled in the case of Raees vs. State of M.P. Reported in 2013 (5) M.P.H.T. 233. Para nos. 5 to 10 of the order are relevant which reads as under:-
"5. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and to advert such contention the relevant provision of Adhiniyam of 2004 is required to be seen. As per Section 11 (5) of the Adhiniyam of 2004 it is clear that in case of any violation of Section 4, 5, 6A and 6B, the Police Authorities are empowered to seize the vehicle or cow progeny and beef. The District Magistrate is having power to confiscate the same in a manner prescribed.
Rule 5 and 6 of the Rules of 2012, which deals, confiscation, and appeal are relevant, however, it is reproduced as under: -
"Rule-5 Confiscation by District Magistrate,-
In case of any violation of section 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B, the police shall be empowered to seize the vehicles, cow progeny and beef as per the provisions of section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) in following manner : -
(i) He shall take possession of the vehicle;
(ii) He shall intimate the Veterinary Department to take in custody of the cow-progeny and beef.
(iii) The beef of cow-progeny shall be disposed of by the department by such procedure as he deems fit.
Rule-6 Manner of Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under sub-section (5) of section 11 of the Act, may prefer an appeal in writing to the Divisional Commissioner within thirty days of the date of knowledge of such order. Every appeal shall be made under sub-section (1) of section11-A of the Act."
6. On perusal of the aforesaid it is apparent that in the aforesaid rules the procedure has been prescribed for confiscation and against the said order the appeal may be maintained before the Divisional Commissioner. After going through the provisions of "the Adhiniyam of 2004" as well as the "Rules of 2012" the bar of jurisdiction of the criminal Court to grant interim custody of property as specified in Section 451 of Cr.P.C. is not there. Similarly under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, there is no bar to grant interim custody. Therefore, it is to be held that the application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. filed by any persons aggrieved, seeking interim custody of the vehicle, cow progeny and beef can be entertained by the Criminal Courts. Here to deal with the argument of learned Government Advocate that grant of interim custody on receiving intimation of confiscation is not proper; it is relevant to note that in Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1951 Section 47-A specifies the confiscation of seized intoxicant article, equipments, utensils, characters and materials. Section 47-D creates a bar of jurisdiction of the Criminal Court under the circumstance when an intimation as per Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the said Act has been sent to the Court by Collector then the power of criminal Court to grant interim custody is ousted. But as stated herein above either in the Adhiniyam of 2004 or in the Rules of 2012 or under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 no such statutory bar over the criminal court to entertain the application under Section 451, Cr.P.C. is, there, however, the said argument is not supported by law, hence, repealed.
7. In the sequel of the aforesaid fact and after going through the provisions of Adhiniyam of 2004 and the Rules of 2012 it is clear that the District magistrate is having power to confiscate the vehicle, cow progeny and beef in a manner prescribed. The rules specifies the procedure for confiscation and after passing the order of confiscation an appeal shall lie to Divisional Commissioner. Until the order of confiscation is passed by the District magistrate, the initiation of action for confiscation is not assailable by filing the appeal Thus, after seizure of vehicle for the offences under the Adhiniyam 2004 or the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 during pendency of the trial or proceedings for confiscation if an application under Section 451, Cr.P.C. has been filed, the criminal Courts are competent to pass the order of interim custody in accordance with law.
8. In the present case looking to the observations made by the two Courts below it is clear that the order of confiscation has not yet been passed by the District Magistrate and the proceedings are pending before him, however, refusal of the interim custody by the two Courts below is unsustainable in law. It is relevant to note to entertain the application for interim custody by the Criminal Court has not been specific in the Rules, but looking to the fact, against the order of confiscation passed by District Magistrate, the recourse of filing an appeal has been specified, in Rule 6 to the Divisional Commissioner, therefore, the Criminal Court may refrain to grant the interim custody of the vehicle, cow progeny and beef after passing the order of confiscation, however, applying the self imposed restrictions and taking note of the procedure prescribed after the order of confiscation, until and unless, the exceptional circumstances is prevalent, order passing the interim custody ought to be avoided by the Criminal Courts. After the confiscation order parties may be relegated to take recourse as permissible under the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the Rules.
9. It is to be noted here that keeping the custody of the vehicle, cow progeny and beef for a long time with the prosecution agency, is also not in the fair administration of the justice. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) has emphasized the need for disposal of the property pending trial. It has been observed by the Apex Court that the Court should exercise such power expeditiously and judiciously because it would serve various purposes namely:-
1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and
4. The jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.
10. This Court in a case of Moh. Amjad (supra) has directed to release the vehicle, which was seized under Section 11 (5) of the Adhiniyam of 2004. Thus, considering the legal position as enumerated in the judgment of Sunderbhai Ambalal (supra) and also looking to the fact that statutory bar to release the vehicle, cow-progeny and beef is not within the Adhiniyam and on considering the existing need to release the interim custody of the property, may be directed by the Court in view of the foregoing observations. In the facts of this case, order of refusal of interim custody of the vehicles passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class and affirmed by the revisional Court are set aside."
9. Relying upon the judgment passed in M.Cr.C. No.10076/2013 dt. 21.1.2014 Firoz vs. State of M.P. (supra) this Court in another petition No. M.Cr.C. 593/2015, M.Cr.C. No. 18296/2014 and M.Cr.C. No.8296/2014 has settled that there is no bar in the Act, 1960 to release the vehicle on interim custody therefore, order of refusal of interim custody of the vehicle passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and affirmed by the Revisional Court are liable to be set-aside.
10. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The orders passed by the learned Courts below dated 19.07.2017 and 15.05.2017 are set-aside. It is directed that on proving of ownership of the vehicle by the petitioner and on furnishing personal bond in the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty lacs. only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of JMFC/CJM concerned, the aforesaid Container bearing Registration No. HR 55 N 5546 be released subject to comply the following conditions:-
(i) That, petitioner shall produce the same before the trial Court as and when directed to do so.
(ii)That, in the meantime, he shall not alienate the vehicle or make use of vehicle for any unlawful purpose; and
(iii) That, he shall not carry out any change in the colour and outward appearance of the vehicle.
11. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.924/2017 22/09/2017 :-
Shri R. R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.7236/2017, an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C.
The accused is punished for breach of condition of externment order and sentenced for one year R.I. and fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation.
The judgment passed by the learned trial Court is confirmed by the learned appellate Court vide order dated 24.06.2017.
According to the prosecution story, on an information received by the police station- Betma, District Indore, the police arrested the present applicant and after investigation it was found that he was exiled from the boarders of districts Indore, Ujjain, Dewas, Dhar, Khargone and Khandwa vide order dated 30.06.2011, passed by A.D.M., Indore for a period of six months from 07.07.2011. But, on 10.10.2011, he was found in Betma, District Indore.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the trial appellant was on bail and sentence is also suspended till tomorrow. He is in jail since 24.06.2017 i.e. from the date of judgment of the appellate Court. It is submitted that conclusion of trial is likely to take some time and appellant has a good case in appeal, hence jail sentence be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
Learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the nature of incident, I am of the opinion that appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence. Thus, the application (IA No.7236/2017) for suspension of sentence is allowed. It is directed that on deposition of fine amount and also on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent surety (Rs.25,000/- each) in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 22/02/2018 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf, the execution of substantial jail sentence imposed on the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
A copy of this order be sent to Court concerned for it's compliance.
Let record of trial Court be requisitioned. Let the matter be fixed for hearing on the question of admission.
Certified copy today on payment of necessary charges.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.914/2017 22/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.1496/2017 22/09/2017 :-
Parties through their counsel. At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRR No.1049/2017 22/09/2017 :-
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question admission. On payment of P.F. within a week, notice be issued to the respondent, returnable within six weeks.
List after six weeks alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.8604/2017 22/09/2017 :-
Shri G. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri B. Deshmukh, learned G.A. for the respondent/State. Arguments heard.
1. The petitioner has come before this Court against the order dated 03.04.2017 passed in S.T. No.47/2016 whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the prayer of the petitioner for releasing Rs.21,000/-.
2. Accepting the claim of the petitioner over this stolen property i.e. Rs.21,000/-, the learned trial Court has allowed the application of the petitioner for releasing the amount in his favour in para no.32 of the judgment dated 22.06.2016.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned trial Court has imposed the condition that in case of filing of appeal, the amount shall be released under the order of the learned appellate Court. Whether the appeal has been filed by the accused or not who has been convicted by the court for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced him for 5 years R.I. is a matter of fact, which has to ascertained by the petitioner himself from the record.
4. On the last hearing, learned public prosecutor has assured that he will ascertain the fact from the record of A.G. office and apprise the Court.
5. The learned public prosecutor submitted that as per the record, no such appeal has been field by the accused or no intimation of filing of any appeal by the accused, who has been convicted by the trial court, is received in Advocate General's Office. He further submitted that fact may be ascertained by the trial Court from the jail where the accused is detained for serving the imprisonment.
6. In view of the above said status of filing of the appeal, the petitioner is directed to approach before the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The petitioner is free to file any appropriate affidavit regarding filing of the appeal.
7. With the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.8914/2017 22/09/2017:-
Shri D.K. Ranwka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri B. Deshmukh, learned G.A. for the respondent no.1/State.
Shri D. Chelawat, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/Richa Jain.
1. Both the parties have come before this Court on the ground that they have settled their dispute amicably and prays for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.237/16 of Police Station-
Kotwali, District Dhar alongwith the proceedings of Criminal Case No.3083/2016 arising out of the said FIR and pending before the JMFC, Dhar under Section 498-A and 494/34 of IPC and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. On 11.09.2017, both the parties entered into the compromise. Due to this settlement, the complainant does not wants to prosecute FIR bearing Crime No.237/16 of Police Station- Kotwali, District Dhar and the proceedings as stated above.
3. During pendency of the petition as well as the criminal case, both the parties have arrived at compromise and filed the same before this Court also.
4. Complete record of the case has been sent to the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of the compromise and the parties were directed to appear before him. On verification, the Principal Registrar has certified that both the parties have entered into a compromise without any fear or favour or without under coercion or threatening from either side. The complainant has admitted before the Principal Registrar that they have amicably settled their dispute with the petitioner and admitted that she has voluntarily entered into compromise.
5. It is submitted that the matter pertains to offence registered against the petitioner under Section 498-A and 494/34 of IPC and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Now both the parties have amicably settled the matter and the respondent no.2/complainant has no more grievance against the petitioner.
6. In the matter of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 whereby the Apex Court has held that Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect inherent powers of High Court granted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and in cases of matrimonial disputes if the application is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.for quashing criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, the same can be quashed. Hon'ble the Apex Court has reiterated the view in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466.
7. Considering the report of the Principal Registrar so also the fact that the dispute between the parties is related to the marriage and is personal in nature.
8. Looking to the nature of the dispute and the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and the respondent no.2/complainant do not have any grievance with the petitioners, I find that the application needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. FIR bearing Crime No.237/16 of Police Station- Kotwali, District Dhar alongwith the proceedings of Criminal Case No.3083/2016 pending before the JMFC, Dhar under Section 498-A and 494/34 of IPC and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are hereby quashed.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed to the extent herein above indicated.
10. Bail bond, if any, submitted by the petitioners shall stands discharged.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Trial Court for compliance.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9393/2017 22/09/2017 :-
Shri G.K. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Record of the trial Court is not available. Record of the trial Court be requisitioned. List thereafter along with the record.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.3664/2017 22/09/2017 :-
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the non-applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for further one week time to file copy of the charge-sheet.
Time is granted.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.10141/2017 22/09/2017 :-
Shri A.K. Dawale, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the non-applicant/State.
This is the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. of applicant/ Mahendra Singh apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.434/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC. No other bail application has been either filed, decided or pending before the Sessions Court or before this Court or before Hon'ble the Apex Court in connection with the present case.
Allegations have been made against the applicant by his employer that during his employment, he misappropriated certain amount released as loan in favour of the aspirants.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to surrender before the learned trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
With the aforesaid liberty, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.6867/2017 22/09/2017 :-
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the non-applicant/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
1. This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.207/2017 registered at Police Station- Dhamnod, District-Dhar for the offence punishable under Section 304 B and 302 of IPC and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and she is under custody from 19.05.2017. As per information given by the accused, no other bail application either filed or pending before or decided by any co-ordinate Bench of this Court or by Hon'ble the Apex Court in connection with the present crime number.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case, as she is innocent and there no case is made out against her. It is further submitted that conclusion of the trial may take it's own time and there is no possibility of absconding of applicant and also there is no criminal antecedents attributed to her, therefore, she may be released on bail.
3. Prosecution has opposed the bail application.
4. The allegations against the present applicant, who is sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased/Kavita, are that the husband of the deceased was in regular touch with her. In the statement of father of the deceased recorded on 19.04.2017, he has made no allegation against the present applicant except that prior to incident, when husband of the deceased has come to their house and stayed there for one and half month, he was in regular contact with the present applicant which was the reason of dispute between both of them. Though, mother of the deceased has made allegation that just before the incident, the deceased called her and stated that her Jethani is also involved in demand of motorcycle by relatives of her husband, but, father has not made any such allegation who also talked with her on phone at the same time.
5. Considering the allegation against the applicant so also the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed and she is in custody since 19.05.2017, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the applicant/Sonabi has made out a case for granting bail. Thus the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for her appearance before the trial court as and when required with the following directions :-
(i) The applicant shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend the trial Court during the trial;
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts of the Court;
(iii) The applicant shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities;
(iv) In case, involvement in any other criminal activities is found, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.
C.C. as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.10067/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri Krishna Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent.
This is a petition for restoration of Criminal Revision No.376/2017, dismissed by this Court for want of prosecution vide order dated 23.08.2017.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to district - Dewas. On 23.08.2017, Shri Vishal Tiwari, Advocate from Dewas was going to appear for filing of Vakalatnama and certain documents, but due to some confusion regarding the date, he could not appear before the Court. Non-appearance was caused due to misinformation and the same was not intentional. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Criminal Revision No.376/2017 be restored to its original number.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment dated 05.08.2015 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Jawahar Lal @ Jawahar lal Jalaj v. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.51760/2015 on Criminal Misc. Case No.1994/2011, Judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Ibrahimsab v. Faridabi order dated 17.04.1986 in Criminal Petition No.522/1984 and in the case of Raghuvera v. State of U.P. reported in 1990 CRI.L.J. 2735 where it is held that Bar under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. does not apply to the judgment and order not passed on merit or if the criminal petition is dismissed for want of prosecution or in default, the said order can not be taken as either final order or judgment, as no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner.
It is admitted position that no one appeared for the petitioner when the matter was called for hearing and the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. No order had been passed on merit. Therefore, considering the reason assigned by the petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice to restore the petition.
Consequently, the present petition is allowed. Criminal Revision No.376/2017 be restored to its original number subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited with the High Court Legal Aid Committee.
A copy of this order be placed in the record of Criminal Revision No.376/2017.
With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.728/2002 20/09/2017:-
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.8820/17 an application for condonation of absence of appellant no.2/Pawan.
Appellant/Pawan is present in person before the Court and identified by Shri R. Yadav, Advocate.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone the absence. Accordingly, the I.A. No.8820/17 is allowed and the absence is condoned.
Presence of the appellant is taken on record.
The appellant is directed to mark his presence on 11.12.2017 before the registry of this Court and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCC No.167/2017 20.09.2017 Shri Mohan lal Patidar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Purohit, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard.
The petitioner (wife) has come before this Court to get H.M.A. No.1201/2016 pending before the 2 nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore transferred to ASJ, Dharampuri, District - Dhar.
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner got married to Kishore (respondent No.1) on 30.04.2013. Their marriage could not run successfully. Various matrimonial disputes arose between them. Husband (respondent herein) filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which is pending before Family Court, Indore as HMA Case No.1201/2016. It is alleged by the petitioner that she is working as a teacher in Khlghat, District Dhar and due to her 3 years old minor daughter Sona, she is not able to attend the Court at Indore which is 90 K.M. away from her working place.
3. She also submits that it is very difficult for her to go to attend every date of hearing to Indore. Nobody is there to accompany her. She is also not in a position to take her father on every date of hearing. Therefore, it is prayed that H.M.A. Case No.1201/2016 may be transferred to ASJ, Dharampuri, District Dhar.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently oppose the allegations, so also the prayer of the petitioner.
5. I have perused the record.
6. There is no doubt that there are various matrimonial conflicts between the petitioner and respondent. Divorce petition filed by the respondent is pending before the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore.
7. In Aarti Rani vs. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta AIR 2009 SC (suppl.) 758, the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the facts that the matrimonial suit was pending in one State and wife was residing out of that State, distance between two places would cause difficulty to the wife to attend the proceedings, transferred the suit at the place where wife resides. Similarly in Sumitra Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay AIR 2002 SC 396, Renu Goutam vs. Vinod Goutam AIR 2000 SC 3405 (1) and Ravinder Singh vs. Jitender Singh AIR 200 SC 3403 (2) , considering the convenience of wife and other facts of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court transferred the case to the place where the wife resides.
8. In the present case also considering the matrimonial disputes, in my considered opinion, it would be in the interest of justice that the case pending before 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore be transferred to the Court having jurisdiction in Dhar.
9. Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed. HMA Case No.1201/2016 pending before 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore is withdrawn from the Court and transferred to the Court of CJM, Dhar, who may either try the case himself or may send it to a Court of competent jurisdiction under him.
10. With the aforesaid direction, present petition stands disposed of.
11. A copy of this order be sent to both the Courts concerned for necessary compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.12520/2016 20.09.2017 Shri Anand Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.6924/2017 20.09.2017 Shri Amit Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CR No.299/2015 20.09.2017 None for the petitioner.
In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CR No.42/2017 20.09.2017 Shri R. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after four week.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit FA No.192/1997 20.09.2017 None for the appellant.
Ms. Anjali Bhargave, learned counsel for the respondent. In the absence of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit FA No.159/2001 20.09.2017 Shri Sitaram Madrosiya, learned counsel for the LR' of original appellant.
Shri S. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7.
Ms. Gurneet Chawla, learned counsel on behalf of S.K. Shashtri, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
Heard on I.A. No.5595/2017 and application for taking LR's of deceased Virat (legal representative no.2) of the original appellant Pandit Laxmidutt.
Learned counsel for the LR's has submitted that Virat died on 23.08.2017 and this application is filed on 12.09.2017.
Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed. Learned counsel for the LR's of the appellant is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the cause title of memo of the appeal within two weeks.
This is an admitted appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit FA No.160/2006 20.09.2017 Shri S.C. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRA No.192/2006 20.09.2017 Shri Y.P. Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent /State. As per the service report, warrant could not be served due to incomplete and incorrect address while the same has been given in the charge-sheet.
Let perpetual warrant be issued against the appellant no.1 Mada @ Madiya to secure his presence before this court.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRA No.743/2004 20.09.2017 Shri Ansul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent /State. Let issue bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- against the appellant no.3 Radheshyam to secure his presence before this Court, returnable on 20.11.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRA No.1075/2004 20/09/2017:-
None for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.
Service report on bailable warrant issued against the appellant no.2 Dashriya is awaited.
List after two weeks alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9423/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Heard.
This is first bail petition under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in connection with crime No.245/2017 registered at Police Station Neemuch Cant, district Neemuch for the offence punishable under section 8/15, of the N.D.P.S.Act. No other bail application either filed or pending before or decided by any co- ordinate Bench of this Court or by Hon'ble the Apex Court in connection with the present crime number.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted petitioner has been implicated for having poppy straw in his possession. The quantity of poppy straw alleged to have been recovered is 26 kg which is non-commercial quantity. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no criminal antecedence is attributed against the present petitioner. The accused is in custody since 26.05.2017. The conclusion of the trial would likely to take long time, hence prayed for release of the petitioner on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. Considering the aforesaid and other facts and circumstances of the case, I think it is a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM for his appearance before the trial Court subject to the following conditions: (IX) The petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall attend the trial court during the trial. (X) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses so as to dissuade them from disclosing facts of the case before the Court. (XI) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities (XII) In case any default in attendance before the Court or involvement in any other criminal activities is found the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.
C.c as per rules.
M.Cr.C stands disposed of.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE amit M.Cr.C. No.9132/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri S.A. Warsi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned public prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.
Compliance of the order dated 13.09.2017 is awaited. List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9627/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri Gourav Merma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant is arrested, therefore, the present petition filed by the petitioner for anticipatory bail is rendered infructuous.
Considering the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9783/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri A. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
Case diary is not available. Learned public prosecutor prays for one week time to produce the case diary.
Time is granted.
List in the next week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9829/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri V. Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List in the next week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.1184/2017 20.09.2017 Shri M. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Compliance of the provisions of Section 15 (a) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act is not done. One week further time is granted to the public prosecutor for the same.
List in the next week.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRA No.1610/2017 20.09.2017 Shri S. Nisar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Compliance of the provisions of Section 15 (a) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act is not done. One week further time is granted to the public prosecutor for the same.
List in the next week.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit M.Cr.C. No.7913/2016 20/09/2017:-
Shri R. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.7114/2017 20/09/2017:-
Parties through their counsel. Matter is wrongly listed before this Court. Office to verify and list the matter before the appropriate Bench.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.7750/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri N. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.8690/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri V. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.8728/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri R. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List on Monday i.e. on 25.09.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.8929/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri H. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
Case diary is not available. Last opportunity is granted to the public prosecutor for providing the case diary, if the same is not provide on the next date of hearing, the matter will be heard on merit without case diary.
List after after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9057/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri A. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9089/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
As directed vide order dated 01.09.2017, criminal antecedent of the petitioner is not produced by the prosecution. Further one week time is granted to produce the same.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9280/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri R.K. Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
Case diary is not available. Learned public prosecutor prays for one week time to produce the case diary.
Time is granted.
List after after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9367/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri R. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit CRA No.857/2001 20.09.2017 None for the appellant/accused.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Accused/Chotelal S/o Dulichand produced by Shri M.s. Raghuwanshi (S.I.), Shri Sanjeev (Constable 1746) and Shri Radheshyam (Constable 1900) from Central Jail, Indore, before the Court in compliance of the bailable warrant issued against him vide order dated 26.07.2017.
Presence of the appellant/accused is taken on record. He did not furnish any bail bond in pursuance of the bailable warrant issued against him neither before the police nor before the Court, therefore, he is sent back to the concerned jail with the same escort to keep him in custody for execution of remaining jail sentence.
List on 20.02.2018.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9454/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit ##M.Cr.C. No.9554/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri A. Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9561/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri Y.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9582/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri Manish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
Case diary is not available. Learned public prosecutor prays for one week time to produce the case diary.
Time is granted.
List after on 22.09.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9655/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri R.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
Learned public prosecutor prays for one week to call criminal antecedent of the petitioner.
Time is granted.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9681/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri Lokesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned public prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9730/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri T.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned public prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petitioner with liberty to file a fresh application before the learned trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
With the aforesaid liberty, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9759/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri R. Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned public prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.
Case diary is not available. Learned public prosecutor prays for one week time to produce the case diary.
Time is granted.
List after on 27.09.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9780/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri Puneet Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned public prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9781/2017 20/09/2017:-
None for the petitioner.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned public prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.
Case diary is not available. In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9792/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri PK Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned public prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9816/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri J. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned public prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.
Case diary is not available. Learned public prosecutor prays for one week time to produce the case diary.
Time is granted.
List after on 27.09.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9830/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned public prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.
Case diary is not available. Learned public prosecutor prays for one week time to produce the case diary.
Time is granted.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9850/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri N. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned public prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.
Case diary is not available. Learned public prosecutor prays for one week time to produce the case diary.
Time is granted.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9879/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri M. Patidar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned public prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9891/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri R.C. Gangare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned public prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.
Learned public prosecutor prays for one week to call criminal antecedent of the petitioner.
Time is granted.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9977/2017 20/09/2017:-
Shri R. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned public prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.
Case diary is not available. Learned public prosecutor prays for one week time to produce the case diary.
Time is granted.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.8825/2017 18/09/2017:-
Shri A. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the non- applicant/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9421/2017 18/09/2017 :-
Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R. Sukhani, learned counsel for the objector/complainant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the non- applicant/State.
The applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that there are no ingredients or other evidence available of Section 354 of IPC, other offence are bailable, the applicant is a student of engineering and allegations made against the him are vague, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to him.
According to the facts, when the complainant was in gym, the accused/applicant intentionally outraged her modesty. In her statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has made allegations against the accused.
Learned public prosecutor has submitted that CCTV footage is also available in which commission of the accused is recorded.
I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the record.
Considering the nature of offence and other facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it proper case to grant anticipatory bail to the accused. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit M.Cr.C. No.9692/2017 18/09/2017 :-
Shri R.S. Chabra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the non- applicant/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary. This is the first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. of applicant/Jairamdas Tuteja apprehending his arrest in connection with crime no.0178/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 306 and 34 of IPC. No other bail application has been either filed, decided or pending before the Sessions Court or before this Court or before Hon'ble the Apex Court in connection with the present case.
Learned lower Court vide order dated 31/08/2017 has rejected the application.
According to the facts of the case that one Laxminarayan Mukati has committed suicide on 16.08.2010 due to financial crisis. He mentioned the name of the present applicant in his suicide note and the report was lodged on 29.03.2017. allegations are that the applicant has purchased agricultural land from the deceased and his wife, but did not pay the consideration.
Photocopies of the registered sale deeds are produced by the applicant on record.
In reply the learned counsel for the non-applicant has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the documents and other facts and circumstances of the present case, without commenting on merits, at this stage, I find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicant's arrest and produced before the Court or he surrenders before the trial Court within 30 days in connection with Crime No.178/2017, he be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer concerned. He would abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge Amit MCRC No.9452/17 & MCRC No.10003/17 18.09.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel with Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, list the matter alongwith the connected MCRC No.9953/17 on 25.09.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.10070/17 18.09.2017 Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A. Godha, learned counsel for the complainant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the complainant prays for and is granted time to file reply.
List in the next week.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRA No.1414/2017 18.09.2017 Shri R. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRA No.1517/2017 18.09.2017 Shri S.A. Warsi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Compliance of the provisions of Section 15 (a) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act is not done. One week further time is granted to the public prosecutor for the same.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRA No.1550/2017 18.09.2017 Shri Nithin Bhati, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
The appellants have come before this Court against the order dated 22.08.2017 passed in bail application no.140/17 by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Rajgarh whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the anticipatory bail application of the appellants.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there are no ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989. This is a case only road rage where after the accident, both the parties have arrived at compromise, but, later, the complainant filed the FIR. No serious injuries have been found in the medical examination and no one was admitted in the hospital, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to them.
Learned counsel for the complainant and public prosecutor have opposed the prayer.
Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on Kalyan Singh v. State of M.P. reported in 1995 (2) M.P.W.L. 14 in which it is held by the Court that prima facie offence under section (3) (1) (x) is not made out than bar under Section 18 does not apply, anticipatory bail may be granted.
According to the FIR, after the accident, compromise was done, but they again attacked the complainant party with lethal weapons like sword and rode etc. they used filthy language in the name of caste of the complainant.
I have gone through the record.
Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Kalyan Singh (Supra) may not be granted as the facts the case are distinguished from the case in hand.
Therefore, considering the aforesaid and other facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it proper case to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRA No.1581/2017 18.09.2017 Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Complainant/Kusum is also present in person. This is the first bail application under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by appellant/Afsar Khan who has been arrested by Police on 18.08.2017 in Crime No.497/2017, Police Station- Kannod, District- Dewas, in connection with offence under Sections 376 and 354 of IPC, under Sections 3(2) (5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The learned trial Court has rejected the bail application vide order dated 28.08.2017.
Arguments heard with the help of case-diary. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, on 07.08.2017, filed a report against the accused/appellant that 07.08.2017 the accused caught her and captured her photo and threatened her that he will shows the photographs to her husband and defame her than he took her to ---------- and rap upon her, she did not disclosed the incident before any one. On 17.08.2017, he again caught her to a lodge, but due to the crowd gather there, he left her. The police registered a case and sent the accused in jail.
During the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. she has not made allegation against the accused and stated that nothing has been happened with her. The complainant present in person before this Court and stated that the police has threatened her at the police station, but nothing has been stated that again she was under any threat while recording statements before the trial Court under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
Learned public prosecutor for the respondent has opposed the prayer for bail.
I have gone through the record.
The accused is in jail since 18.08.2017 and trial is likely to take sufficient time.
Considering the allegation, nature of the offence so also the other facts and circumstances of the case, this is a fit case to release the appellant on bail.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the appeal is hereby allowed. It is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, he shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions that:-
(i)The appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend the trial Court during the trial:
(ii)The appellant shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, thereat or promise to prosecution witnesses so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court.
(iii)The appellant shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities;
(iv)In case, any default in attendance before the Court or involvement in any other criminal activities is found, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.
CC as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit ####M.Cr.C.No.5365/2017 11.09.2017 Shri A. Vyas, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the respondents. Arguments heard.
The petitioner/husband has come before this Court against the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court and also of revisional Court regarding the fact that respondent/wife is living separate without any sufficient cause and therefore, she is not entitled to get maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each for herself and for her son.
Admittedly, both the petitioner and the respondent no.1 entered into second marriage with each other on 26.07.2010. They blessed with a son/Shourya. Their marriage could not run successfully and they parted their ways. Both the parties have made allegations and counter allegations of cruelty, harassment and misbehavior against each other. After examining the evidence of both the parties, the learned trial Court held that respondent no.1 has sufficient cause to live separate. Therefore, she is entitled to get maintenance.
After scrutinizing the allegations and counter allegations of the parties in para nos.23 to 26 of the judgment, the learned trial Court reached on the conclusion that the allegations of the respondent have some weightage and considering the conduct of the petitioner towards the respondent she has sufficient cause for living separate. In second scrutiny, the revisional Court also upheld these findings.
It was alleged before the learned trial court by the respondent no.1 that petitioner runs a furniture shop and is earning Rs.50,000/- per month while the petitioner alleged that the respondent is serving in Raghuwansh Public School, Sendhwa and getting salary of Rs.17842/- per month. The petitioner admitted that he owns a furniture shop but denied that he earns Rs.50,000/- from this shop. He has submitted that the shop is situated in a small village having population of hardly 50,000. His business was not doing well. The respondent herself has admitted that he had borrowed money from many persons including her maternal uncle. Respondent no.1 could not produced evidence to prove income of the petitioner. The petitioner has produced documents particularly the attendance register of Raghuwansh Public School, Sendhwa which shows that respondent was serving there as a teacher. Father of the respondent has also admitted that she had served as a teacher in Raghuwansh Public School, Sendhwa from 2010-12. It is also admitted by the Principal of the Raghuwansh Public School, Sendhwa, Ms. Sheetal Sharaf (DW-2) that in her school, teachers are getting an average Rs.10,000/- per month.
The petitioner has come before this court on the grounds that the order of the learned trial Court is erroneous and contrary to law and facts. The petitioner is ready to keep the respondent with him and can not afford separate living expenses. The respondent is self dependent and needs no maintenance. He prayed for quashment of the orders of both the Courts below.
The respondent has opposed the prayer stating that she is unable to maintain herself and her son. She has demanded maintenance.
I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and have gone through the evidence produced by both the parties before the learned trial Court and also of the orders of both the courts below.
The object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is amelioration of financial status of wife so that she can sustain herself. Sustenance cannot mean mere survival. Maintenance has therefore, to be so fixed that she is entitled to lead a life in similar manner as she would have lived in house of her husband. While determining the quantum of maintenance allowance, it can never be forgotten that inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to support the wife when compelled to leave her matrimonial home therefore, there has to be some acceptable arrangement so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance get more heightened when the children are with her. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a mode of speedy justice and is specially engaged protect woman and children from penury.
The learned trial Court has considered all the evidence produced by the parties particularly by the respondent and keeping in view the financial status of the petitioner and service and salary of the respondent awarded Rs.3,000/- each, in favour of the respondent no.1 and her son.
Keeping in view the object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and also the principles to be followed while determining the quantum of the maintenance, I do not find any strong, cogent, convincing reasons to reverse, disturb or modify the findings of both the Courts below. Therefore, in my considered view, there is no reason to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner. The present petition is devoid of merits, liable to be and is dismissed hereby.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit M.Cr.C.No.8537/2017 11.09.2017 Shri H. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri R. Joshi, learned G.A. for the respondent/State. Arguments heard.
The petitioner has challenged order dt. 7.7.2017 passed in Cri.Revision No.39/2017 by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dt. 11.05.2017 passed by the learned JMFC Khargone, in Criminal Case No.105/2017 dismissing the prayer of the petitioner for releasing the Pick Up Van bearing No.MP 09 GG 0725 seized in Crime No.105/2017 under Section 4,6,9 of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and under Section 11 (d) of Cruelty towards Animal Act, 1960.
2. Facts in brief are that on 23.04.2017 at about 7:00 P.M., on an information received in the Police Station, the Police seized three Pick Up Van bearing registration Nos.MP 46 G 0338, MP 10 G 0812 and MP 09 GG 0725 and found that in all 09 (three in every van) cow progeny were being transported to Maharashtra for the purpose of slaughtering. The Police registered a crime, seized the vehicles and the cow progeny as stated above confiscation proceedings were started by the Collector.
3. The petitioner filed application for releasing the vehicle being owner of the truck stating that he is unaware of the act of the driver of the truck and his vehicle is being seized first time. He further submitted that he was not present at the time of the seizure also.
4. The prayer is opposed by the learned public prosecutor.
5. Both the Courts below have rejected the application and the revision on the ground that confiscation proceeding has been started by the Collector of the District and the fact was informed to the trial Court.
6. It is submitted by the learned public prosecutor that confiscation proceedings are still pending till date.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is registered owner of the Pick Up Van bearing No.MP 09 GG 0725 seized by the Police for the charges alleged and mentioned in para 1 above.
8. The question involved in this petition as to whether the vehicle seized on the charges under the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 can be released inspite of the pendency of the confiscation proceedings before the District Magistrate/Collector has already been settled in the case of Raees vs. State of M.P. Reported in 2013 (5) M.P.H.T. 233. Para nos. 5 to 10 of the order are relevant which reads as under:-
"5. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and to advert such contention the relevant provision of Adhiniyam of 2004 is required to be seen. As per Section 11 (5) of the Adhiniyam of 2004 it is clear that in case of any violation of Section 4, 5, 6A and 6B, the Police Authorities are empowered to seize the vehicle or cow progeny and beef. The District Magistrate is having power to confiscate the same in a manner prescribed. Rule 5 and 6 of the Rules of 2012, which deals, confiscation, and appeal are relevant, however, it is reproduced as under: -
"Rule-5 Confiscation by District Magistrate,-
In case of any violation of section 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B, the police shall be empowered to seize the vehicles, cow progeny and beef as per the provisions of section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) in following manner : -
(i) He shall take possession of the vehicle;
(ii) He shall intimate the Veterinary Department to take in custody of the cow-progeny and beef.
(iii) The beef of cow-progeny shall be disposed of by the department by such procedure as he deems fit.
Rule-6 Manner of Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under sub-section (5) of section 11 of the Act, may prefer an appeal in writing to the Divisional Commissioner within thirty days of the date of knowledge of such order. Every appeal shall be made under sub-section (1) of section11-A of the Act."
6. On perusal of the aforesaid it is apparent that in the aforesaid rules the procedure has been prescribed for confiscation and against the said order the appeal may be maintained before the Divisional Commissioner. After going through the provisions of "the Adhiniyam of 2004" as well as the "Rules of 2012" the bar of jurisdiction of the criminal Court to grant interim custody of property as specified in Section 451 of Cr.P.C. is not there. Similarly under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, there is no bar to grant interim custody. Therefore, it is to be held that the application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. filed by any persons aggrieved, seeking interim custody of the vehicle, cow progeny and beef can be entertained by the Criminal Courts. Here to deal with the argument of learned Government Advocate that grant of interim custody on receiving intimation of confiscation is not proper; it is relevant to note that in Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1951 Section 47-A specifies the confiscation of seized intoxicant article, equipments, utensils, characters and materials. Section 47-D creates a bar of jurisdiction of the Criminal Court under the circumstance when an intimation as per Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the said Act has been sent to the Court by Collector then the power of criminal Court to grant interim custody is ousted. But as stated herein above either in the Adhiniyam of 2004 or in the Rules of 2012 or under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 no such statutory bar over the criminal court to entertain the application under Section 451, Cr.P.C. is, there, however, the said argument is not supported by law, hence, repealed.
7. In the sequel of the aforesaid fact and after going through the provisions of Adhiniyam of 2004 and the Rules of 2012 it is clear that the District magistrate is having power to confiscate the vehicle, cow progeny and beef in a manner prescribed. The rules specifies the procedure for confiscation and after passing the order of confiscation an appeal shall lie to Divisional Commissioner. Until the order of confiscation is passed by the District magistrate, the initiation of action for confiscation is not assailable by filing the appeal Thus, after seizure of vehicle for the offences under the Adhiniyam 2004 or the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 during pendency of the trial or proceedings for confiscation if an application under Section 451, Cr.P.C. has been filed, the criminal Courts are competent to pass the order of interim custody in accordance with law.
8. In the present case looking to the observations made by the two Courts below it is clear that the order of confiscation has not yet been passed by the District Magistrate and the proceedings are pending before him, however, refusal of the interim custody by the two Courts below is unsustainable in law. It is relevant to note to entertain the application for interim custody by the Criminal Court has not been specific in the Rules, but looking to the fact, against the order of confiscation passed by District Magistrate, the recourse of filing an appeal has been specified, in Rule 6 to the Divisional Commissioner, therefore, the Criminal Court may refrain to grant the interim custody of the vehicle, cow progeny and beef after passing the order of confiscation, however, applying the self imposed restrictions and taking note of the procedure prescribed after the order of confiscation, until and unless, the exceptional circumstances is prevalent, order passing the interim custody ought to be avoided by the Criminal Courts. After the confiscation order parties may be relegated to take recourse as permissible under the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the Rules.
9. It is to be noted here that keeping the custody of the vehicle, cow progeny and beef for a long time with the prosecution agency, is also not in the fair administration of the justice. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) has emphasized the need for disposal of the property pending trial. It has been observed by the Apex Court that the Court should exercise such power expeditiously and judiciously because it would serve various purposes namely:-
1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and
4. The jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.
10. This Court in a case of Moh. Amjad (supra) has directed to release the vehicle, which was seized under Section 11 (5) of the Adhiniyam of 2004. Thus, considering the legal position as enumerated in the judgment of Sunderbhai Ambalal (supra) and also looking to the fact that statutory bar to release the vehicle, cow-progeny and beef is not within the Adhiniyam and on considering the existing need to release the interim custody of the property, may be directed by the Court in view of the foregoing observations. In the facts of this case, order of refusal of interim custody of the vehicles passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class and affirmed by the revisional Court are set aside."
9. Relying upon the judgment passed in M.Cr.C. No.10076/2013 dt. 21.1.2014 Firoz vs. State of M.P. (supra) this Court in another petition No. M.Cr.C. 593/2015, M.Cr.C. No. 18296/2014 and M.Cr.C. No.8296/2014 has settled that there is no bar in the Act, 1960 to release the vehicle on interim custody therefore, order of refusal of interim custody of the vehicle passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and affirmed by the Revisional Court are liable to be set-aside.
10. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The orders passed by the learned Courts below dated 07.07.2017 and 11.05.2017 are set-aside. It is directed that on proving of ownership of the vehicle by the petitioner and on furnishing personal bond in the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs. only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of JMFC/CJM concerned, the aforesaid Pick Up Van bearing No.MP 09 GG 0725 be released subject to comply the following conditions:-
(i) That, petitioner shall produce the same before the trial Court as and when directed to do so.
(ii)That, in the meantime, he shall not alienate the vehicle or make use of vehicle for any unlawful purpose; and
(iii) That, he shall not carry out any change in the colour and outward appearance of the vehicle.
11. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.
12. C.C. as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit M.Cr.C.No.8544/2017 11.09.2017 Shri H. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri R. Joshi, learned G.A. for the respondent/State. Arguments heard.
The petitioner has challenged order dt. 7.7.2017 passed in Cri.Revision No.41/2017 by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dt. 11.05.2017 passed by the learned JMFC Khargone, in Criminal Case No.105/2017 dismissing the prayer of the petitioner for releasing the Pick Up Van bearing No.MP 10 G 0338 seized in Crime No.105/2017 under Section 4,6,9 of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and under Section 11 (d) of Cruelty towards Animal Act, 1960.
2. Facts in brief are that on 23.04.2017 at about 7:00 P.M., on an information received in the Police Station, the Police seized three Pick Up Van bearing registration Nos.MP 46 G 0338, MP 10 G 0812 and MP 09 GG 0725 and found that in all 09 (three in every van) cow progeny were being transported to Maharashtra for the purpose of slaughtering. The Police registered a crime, seized the vehicles and the cow progeny as stated above confiscation proceedings were started by the Collector.
3. The petitioner filed application for releasing the vehicle being owner of the truck stating that he is unaware of the act of the driver of the truck and his vehicle is being seized first time. He further submitted that he was not present at the time of the seizure also.
4. The prayer is opposed by the learned public prosecutor.
5. Both the Courts below have rejected the application and the revision on the ground that confiscation proceeding has been started by the Collector of the District and the fact was informed to the trial Court.
6. It is submitted by the learned public prosecutor that confiscation proceedings are still pending till date.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is registered owner of the Pick Up Van bearing No.MP 10 G 0338 seized by the Police for the charges alleged and mentioned in para 1 above.
8. The question involved in this petition as to whether the vehicle seized on the charges under the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 can be released inspite of the pendency of the confiscation proceedings before the District Magistrate/Collector has already been settled in the case of Raees vs. State of M.P. Reported in 2013 (5) M.P.H.T. 233. Para nos. 5 to 10 of the order are relevant which reads as under:-
"5. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and to advert such contention the relevant provision of Adhiniyam of 2004 is required to be seen. As per Section 11 (5) of the Adhiniyam of 2004 it is clear that in case of any violation of Section 4, 5, 6A and 6B, the Police Authorities are empowered to seize the vehicle or cow progeny and beef. The District Magistrate is having power to confiscate the same in a manner prescribed. Rule 5 and 6 of the Rules of 2012, which deals, confiscation, and appeal are relevant, however, it is reproduced as under: -
"Rule-5 Confiscation by District Magistrate,-
In case of any violation of section 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B, the police shall be empowered to seize the vehicles, cow progeny and beef as per the provisions of section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) in following manner : -
(i) He shall take possession of the vehicle;
(ii) He shall intimate the Veterinary Department to take in custody of the cow-progeny and beef.
(iii) The beef of cow-progeny shall be disposed of by the department by such procedure as he deems fit.
Rule-6 Manner of Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under sub-section (5) of section 11 of the Act, may prefer an appeal in writing to the Divisional Commissioner within thirty days of the date of knowledge of such order. Every appeal shall be made under sub-section (1) of section11-A of the Act."
6. On perusal of the aforesaid it is apparent that in the aforesaid rules the procedure has been prescribed for confiscation and against the said order the appeal may be maintained before the Divisional Commissioner. After going through the provisions of "the Adhiniyam of 2004" as well as the "Rules of 2012" the bar of jurisdiction of the criminal Court to grant interim custody of property as specified in Section 451 of Cr.P.C. is not there. Similarly under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, there is no bar to grant interim custody. Therefore, it is to be held that the application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. filed by any persons aggrieved, seeking interim custody of the vehicle, cow progeny and beef can be entertained by the Criminal Courts. Here to deal with the argument of learned Government Advocate that grant of interim custody on receiving intimation of confiscation is not proper; it is relevant to note that in Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1951 Section 47-A specifies the confiscation of seized intoxicant article, equipments, utensils, characters and materials. Section 47-D creates a bar of jurisdiction of the Criminal Court under the circumstance when an intimation as per Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the said Act has been sent to the Court by Collector then the power of criminal Court to grant interim custody is ousted. But as stated herein above either in the Adhiniyam of 2004 or in the Rules of 2012 or under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 no such statutory bar over the criminal court to entertain the application under Section 451, Cr.P.C. is, there, however, the said argument is not supported by law, hence, repealed.
7. In the sequel of the aforesaid fact and after going through the provisions of Adhiniyam of 2004 and the Rules of 2012 it is clear that the District magistrate is having power to confiscate the vehicle, cow progeny and beef in a manner prescribed. The rules specifies the procedure for confiscation and after passing the order of confiscation an appeal shall lie to Divisional Commissioner. Until the order of confiscation is passed by the District magistrate, the initiation of action for confiscation is not assailable by filing the appeal Thus, after seizure of vehicle for the offences under the Adhiniyam 2004 or the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 during pendency of the trial or proceedings for confiscation if an application under Section 451, Cr.P.C. has been filed, the criminal Courts are competent to pass the order of interim custody in accordance with law.
8. In the present case looking to the observations made by the two Courts below it is clear that the order of confiscation has not yet been passed by the District Magistrate and the proceedings are pending before him, however, refusal of the interim custody by the two Courts below is unsustainable in law. It is relevant to note to entertain the application for interim custody by the Criminal Court has not been specific in the Rules, but looking to the fact, against the order of confiscation passed by District Magistrate, the recourse of filing an appeal has been specified, in Rule 6 to the Divisional Commissioner, therefore, the Criminal Court may refrain to grant the interim custody of the vehicle, cow progeny and beef after passing the order of confiscation, however, applying the self imposed restrictions and taking note of the procedure prescribed after the order of confiscation, until and unless, the exceptional circumstances is prevalent, order passing the interim custody ought to be avoided by the Criminal Courts. After the confiscation order parties may be relegated to take recourse as permissible under the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the Rules.
9. It is to be noted here that keeping the custody of the vehicle, cow progeny and beef for a long time with the prosecution agency, is also not in the fair administration of the justice. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) has emphasized the need for disposal of the property pending trial. It has been observed by the Apex Court that the Court should exercise such power expeditiously and judiciously because it would serve various purposes namely:-
1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and
4. The jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.
10. This Court in a case of Moh. Amjad (supra) has directed to release the vehicle, which was seized under Section 11 (5) of the Adhiniyam of 2004. Thus, considering the legal position as enumerated in the judgment of Sunderbhai Ambalal (supra) and also looking to the fact that statutory bar to release the vehicle, cow-progeny and beef is not within the Adhiniyam and on considering the existing need to release the interim custody of the property, may be directed by the Court in view of the foregoing observations. In the facts of this case, order of refusal of interim custody of the vehicles passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class and affirmed by the revisional Court are set aside."
9. Relying upon the judgment passed in M.Cr.C. No.10076/2013 dt. 21.1.2014 Firoz vs. State of M.P. (supra) this Court in another petition No. M.Cr.C. 593/2015, M.Cr.C. No. 18296/2014 and M.Cr.C. No.8296/2014 has settled that there is no bar in the Act, 1960 to release the vehicle on interim custody therefore, order of refusal of interim custody of the vehicle passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and affirmed by the Revisional Court are liable to be set-aside.
10. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The orders passed by the learned Courts below dated 07.07.2017 and 11.05.2017 are set-aside. It is directed that on proving of ownership of the vehicle by the petitioner and on furnishing personal bond in the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs. only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of JMFC/CJM concerned, the aforesaid Pick Up Van bearing No.MP 10 G 0338 be released subject to comply the following conditions:-
(i) That, petitioner shall produce the same before the trial Court as and when directed to do so.
(ii)That, in the meantime, he shall not alienate the vehicle or make use of vehicle for any unlawful purpose; and
(iii) That, he shall not carry out any change in the colour and outward appearance of the vehicle.
11. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.
12. C.C. as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit M.Cr.C.No.8545/2017 11.09.2017 Shri H. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri R. Joshi, learned G.A. for the respondent/State. Arguments heard.
The petitioner has challenged order dt. 7.7.2017 passed in Cri.Revision No.42/2017 by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dt. 11.05.2017 passed by the learned JMFC Khargone, in Criminal Case No.105/2017 dismissing the prayer of the petitioner for releasing the Pick Up Van bearing No.MP 10 G 0812 seized in Crime No.105/2017 under Section 4,6,9 of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and under Section 11 (d) of Cruelty towards Animal Act, 1960.
2. Facts in brief are that on 23.04.2017 at about 7:00 P.M., on an information received in the Police Station, the Police seized three Pick Up Van bearing registration Nos.MP 46 G 0338, MP 10 G 0812 and MP 09 GG 0725 and found that in all 09 (three in every van) cow progeny were being transported to Maharashtra for the purpose of slaughtering. The Police registered a crime, seized the vehicles and the cow progeny as stated above confiscation proceedings were started by the Collector.
3. The petitioner filed application for releasing the vehicle being owner of the truck stating that he is unaware of the act of the driver of the truck and his vehicle is being seized first time. He further submitted that he was not present at the time of the seizure also.
4. The prayer is opposed by the learned public prosecutor.
5. Both the Courts below have rejected the application and the revision on the ground that confiscation proceeding has been started by the Collector of the District and the fact was informed to the trial Court.
6. It is submitted by the learned public prosecutor that confiscation proceedings are still pending till date.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is registered owner of the Pick Up Van bearing No.MP 10 G 0812 seized by the Police for the charges alleged and mentioned in para 1 above.
8. The question involved in this petition as to whether the vehicle seized on the charges under the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 can be released inspite of the pendency of the confiscation proceedings before the District Magistrate/Collector has already been settled in the case of Raees vs. State of M.P. Reported in 2013 (5) M.P.H.T. 233. Para nos. 5 to 10 of the order are relevant which reads as under:-
"5. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and to advert such contention the relevant provision of Adhiniyam of 2004 is required to be seen. As per Section 11 (5) of the Adhiniyam of 2004 it is clear that in case of any violation of Section 4, 5, 6A and 6B, the Police Authorities are empowered to seize the vehicle or cow progeny and beef. The District Magistrate is having power to confiscate the same in a manner prescribed. Rule 5 and 6 of the Rules of 2012, which deals, confiscation, and appeal are relevant, however, it is reproduced as under: -
"Rule-5 Confiscation by District Magistrate,-
In case of any violation of section 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B, the police shall be empowered to seize the vehicles, cow progeny and beef as per the provisions of section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) in following manner : -
(i) He shall take possession of the vehicle;
(ii) He shall intimate the Veterinary Department to take in custody of the cow-progeny and beef.
(iii) The beef of cow-progeny shall be disposed of by the department by such procedure as he deems fit.
Rule-6 Manner of Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under sub-section (5) of section 11 of the Act, may prefer an appeal in writing to the Divisional Commissioner within thirty days of the date of knowledge of such order. Every appeal shall be made under sub-section (1) of section11-A of the Act."
6. On perusal of the aforesaid it is apparent that in the aforesaid rules the procedure has been prescribed for confiscation and against the said order the appeal may be maintained before the Divisional Commissioner. After going through the provisions of "the Adhiniyam of 2004" as well as the "Rules of 2012" the bar of jurisdiction of the criminal Court to grant interim custody of property as specified in Section 451 of Cr.P.C. is not there. Similarly under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, there is no bar to grant interim custody. Therefore, it is to be held that the application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. filed by any persons aggrieved, seeking interim custody of the vehicle, cow progeny and beef can be entertained by the Criminal Courts. Here to deal with the argument of learned Government Advocate that grant of interim custody on receiving intimation of confiscation is not proper; it is relevant to note that in Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1951 Section 47-A specifies the confiscation of seized intoxicant article, equipments, utensils, characters and materials. Section 47-D creates a bar of jurisdiction of the Criminal Court under the circumstance when an intimation as per Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the said Act has been sent to the Court by Collector then the power of criminal Court to grant interim custody is ousted. But as stated herein above either in the Adhiniyam of 2004 or in the Rules of 2012 or under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 no such statutory bar over the criminal court to entertain the application under Section 451, Cr.P.C. is, there, however, the said argument is not supported by law, hence, repealed.
7. In the sequel of the aforesaid fact and after going through the provisions of Adhiniyam of 2004 and the Rules of 2012 it is clear that the District magistrate is having power to confiscate the vehicle, cow progeny and beef in a manner prescribed. The rules specifies the procedure for confiscation and after passing the order of confiscation an appeal shall lie to Divisional Commissioner. Until the order of confiscation is passed by the District magistrate, the initiation of action for confiscation is not assailable by filing the appeal Thus, after seizure of vehicle for the offences under the Adhiniyam 2004 or the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 during pendency of the trial or proceedings for confiscation if an application under Section 451, Cr.P.C. has been filed, the criminal Courts are competent to pass the order of interim custody in accordance with law.
8. In the present case looking to the observations made by the two Courts below it is clear that the order of confiscation has not yet been passed by the District Magistrate and the proceedings are pending before him, however, refusal of the interim custody by the two Courts below is unsustainable in law. It is relevant to note to entertain the application for interim custody by the Criminal Court has not been specific in the Rules, but looking to the fact, against the order of confiscation passed by District Magistrate, the recourse of filing an appeal has been specified, in Rule 6 to the Divisional Commissioner, therefore, the Criminal Court may refrain to grant the interim custody of the vehicle, cow progeny and beef after passing the order of confiscation, however, applying the self imposed restrictions and taking note of the procedure prescribed after the order of confiscation, until and unless, the exceptional circumstances is prevalent, order passing the interim custody ought to be avoided by the Criminal Courts. After the confiscation order parties may be relegated to take recourse as permissible under the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the Rules.
9. It is to be noted here that keeping the custody of the vehicle, cow progeny and beef for a long time with the prosecution agency, is also not in the fair administration of the justice. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) has emphasized the need for disposal of the property pending trial. It has been observed by the Apex Court that the Court should exercise such power expeditiously and judiciously because it would serve various purposes namely:-
1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and
4. The jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.
10. This Court in a case of Moh. Amjad (supra) has directed to release the vehicle, which was seized under Section 11 (5) of the Adhiniyam of 2004. Thus, considering the legal position as enumerated in the judgment of Sunderbhai Ambalal (supra) and also looking to the fact that statutory bar to release the vehicle, cow-progeny and beef is not within the Adhiniyam and on considering the existing need to release the interim custody of the property, may be directed by the Court in view of the foregoing observations. In the facts of this case, order of refusal of interim custody of the vehicles passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class and affirmed by the revisional Court are set aside."
9. Relying upon the judgment passed in M.Cr.C. No.10076/2013 dt. 21.1.2014 Firoz vs. State of M.P. (supra) this Court in another petition No. M.Cr.C. 593/2015, M.Cr.C. No. 18296/2014 and M.Cr.C. No.8296/2014 has settled that there is no bar in the Act, 1960 to release the vehicle on interim custody therefore, order of refusal of interim custody of the vehicle passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and affirmed by the Revisional Court are liable to be set-aside.
10. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The orders passed by the learned Courts below dated 07.07.2017 and 11.05.2017 are set-aside. It is directed that on proving of ownership of the vehicle by the petitioner and on furnishing personal bond in the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs. only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of JMFC/CJM concerned, the aforesaid Pick Up Van bearing No.MP 10 G 0812 be released subject to comply the following conditions:-
(i) That, petitioner shall produce the same before the trial Court as and when directed to do so.
(ii)That, in the meantime, he shall not alienate the vehicle or make use of vehicle for any unlawful purpose; and
(iii) That, he shall not carry out any change in the colour and outward appearance of the vehicle.
11. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.
12. C.C. as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MA No.153/2016 07.09.2017 Shri Abhishek Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent State. At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRR No.804/2017 07.09.2017 Shri O.P. Barve, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj R. Soni, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he could receive copy of the application and documents alongwith the annexures only yesterday, therefore, he need time to file reply.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that suspension may be granted because he has deposited the amount as awarded by the learned trial Court.
There is a serious dispute whether the money has been deposited or not. In this stage, reply appears to be necessary to decide the application. Therefore, prayer of the respondent is allowed.
List on 11.09.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit FA No.717/2016 07.09.2017 Shri J.S. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri J. Bohra, learned counsel on behalf of Shri S. Jain. At the request of learned counsel for the respondent, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks on any Wednesday.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCC No.294/2015 07.09.2017 None for the applicant.
Ms. Rani Pal, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and
2. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned public prosecutor for the State prays for two weeks time to submit report as directed vide order dated 22.03.2017.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.3794/2017 06.09.2017 Ms. Sangeeta Parsai, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent.
Respondent no.2/Yashoda and Ramkanyabai are present in person.
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings arising out of the charge-sheet filed in Crime No.176/17 under Sections 323, 294, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1) (s) and 3(1) (r) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act at police station- Industrial Area, Ratlam.
Ground for quashment of the proceedings is that the respondent no.2/Yashodabai and Ramkanyabai had admitted in their reply to the petition that at the time of incident, the accused/petitioner did not uttered any obscene word relating to their caste.
Both, respondent no.2/Yashodabai and Ramkanyabai have filed affidavit in support of their application.
As per the charge-sheet and statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., respondent no.2/Yashodabai and Ramkanyabai have alleged that at the time of the incident, the accused/petitioner has uttered obscene word and insulted them in the name of their caste. These statements are true or not, is a matter of fact, which can only be appreciated after recording the evidence by the trial Court. Considering the evidence available on record, the proceedings can not be quashed at this stage by this Court by invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., therefore, the present petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed hereby.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.6709/2017 06.09.2017 None for the petitioner.
In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.7008/2017 06.09.2017 None for the petitioner.
Service report is awaited.
In the meantime, record of the trial Court as well as revision Court be requisitioned.
List alongwith the service report and record.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.8534/2017 06.09.2017 Shri Umesh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B. Deshmukh, learned G.A. for the respondent/State. Learned public prosecutor prays for and is granted one weeks time to produce the case-diary.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.8746/2017 06.09.2017 None for the petitioner.
Service report is awaited.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.8943/2017 06.09.2017 Shri Y.P. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.9500/2017 06.09.2017 Shri Yogesh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit ##MCRC No.9500/2017 06.09.2017 Shri Yogesh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRR No.1013/2016 06.09.2017 Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after one week.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRR No.875/2016 06.09.2017 None for the parties.
In the absence of learned counsel for both the parties the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRR No.539/2016 06.09.2017 Shri M. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRR No.1407/2015 06.09.2017 Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.P. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List in first week of October, 2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit ##CRR No.1149/2016 06.09.2017 Shri N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.3216/17 an application for permission of withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial Court.
This is a review petition against the concurrent finding of both the courts below. The petitioner guilt for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881. Sentence of the petitioner has been suspended on subject to deposit 50% amount of the compensation amount which has already been deposited by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that he has no objection if the proper security is taken from the respondent.
Considering the aforesaid and other facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed. Permission to withdraw the 50% amount of the compensation awarded deposited by the petitioner is granted to the respondent, subject to furnishing a proper security to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
With the aforesaid, I.A. No.3216/2017 stands allowed and closed.
List after four weeks for admission.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRR No.1488/2016 06.09.2017 Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.2561/2016 06.09.2017 Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.9805/2016 06.09.2017 Shri S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A. Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent State. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.10692/2016 06.09.2017 Shri V. Phadke, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B. Deshmukh, learned G.A. for the respondent/State. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.11470/2016 06.09.2017 Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.11650/2016 06.09.2017 Shri P. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.12527/2016 06.09.2017 Shri A.K. Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List alongwith the connected MCRC No.9234/17.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRR No.184/2017 06.09.2017 Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the respondent, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRR No.942/2017 06.09.2017 Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.1155/2017 06.09.2017 Shri S.I. Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.1904/2017 06.09.2017 Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MCRC No.4011/2017 06.09.2017 Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit ##FA No.104/2007 06.09.2017 None for the appellant.
Shri S.C. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent. Shri Gagan Bajad appeared and submitted no instruction. Earlier also no one gave appearance on behalf of the appellant. It appears that the appellant has lost his interest in prosecuting the present appeal. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit FA No.1161/2009 06.09.2017 Parties through their counsel.
Matter is wrongly listed before the Court. Office is directed to verify and list the matter before the appropriate Bench.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit MA No.646/2011 06.09.2017 Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri S.V. Dandwate, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit CRR No.2764/2017 11.10.2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for list the matter on 13.10.2017.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 13.10.2017.
(Virender Singh) Judge Praveen