Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 134 (5.44 seconds)
Documents citing Madhukar Rao vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 28 October, 1999

Dharmendra Kumar Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2025

It is succinctly observed [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] in para 18 : (Madhukar Rao case [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] , SCC OnLine MP) "18. ... If the argument on behalf of the State is accepted a property seized on accusation would become the property of the State and can never be released even on the compounding of the offence. The provisions of clause (d) of Section 39 have to be reasonably and harmoniously construed with other provisions of the Act and the Code which together provide a detailed procedure for the trial of the offences. If, as contended on behalf of the State, seizure of property merely on accusation would make the property to be of the Government, it would have the result of depriving an accused of his property without proof of his guilt. On such interpretation clause (d) of Section 39(1) of the Act would suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality. The interpretation placed by the State would mean that a specified officer under the Act merely by seizure of property of an accused would deprive him of his property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation. This would be serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on his trade, occupation or business."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Chetan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2025

It is succinctly observed [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] in para 18 : (Madhukar Rao case [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] , SCC OnLine MP) "18. ... If the argument on behalf of the State is accepted a property seized on accusation would become the property of the State and can never be released even on the compounding of the offence. The provisions of clause (d) of Section 39 have to be reasonably and harmoniously construed with other provisions of the Act and the Code which together provide a detailed procedure for the trial of the offences. If, as contended on behalf of the State, seizure of property merely on accusation would make the property to be of the Government, it would have the result of depriving an accused of his property without proof of his guilt. On such interpretation clause (d) of Section 39(1) of the Act would suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality. The interpretation placed by the State would mean that a specified officer under the Act merely by seizure of property of an accused would deprive him of his property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation. This would be serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on his trade, occupation or business."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sanjay Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2025

It is succinctly observed [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] in para 18 : (Madhukar Rao case [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] , SCC OnLine MP) "18. ... If the argument on behalf of the State is accepted a property seized on accusation would become the property of the State and can never be released even on the compounding of the offence. The provisions of clause (d) of Section 39 have to be reasonably and harmoniously construed with other provisions of the Act and the Code which together provide a detailed procedure for the trial of the offences. If, as contended on behalf of the State, seizure of property merely on accusation would make the property to be of the Government, it would have the result of depriving an accused of his property without proof of his guilt. On such interpretation clause (d) of Section 39(1) of the Act would suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality. The interpretation placed by the State would mean that a specified officer under the Act merely by seizure of property of an accused would deprive him of his property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation. This would be serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on his trade, occupation or business."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Ashif Iqbal Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2025

It is succinctly observed [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] in para 18 : (Madhukar Rao case [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] , SCC OnLine MP) "18. ... If the argument on behalf of the State is accepted a property seized on accusation would become the property of the State and can never be released even on the compounding of the offence. The provisions of clause (d) of Section 39 have to be reasonably and harmoniously construed with other provisions of the Act and the Code which together provide a detailed procedure for the trial of the offences. If, as contended on behalf of the State, seizure of property merely on accusation would make the property to be of the Government, it would have the result of depriving an accused of his property without proof of his guilt. On such interpretation clause (d) of Section 39(1) of the Act would suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality. The interpretation placed by the State would mean that a specified officer under the Act merely by seizure of property of an accused would deprive him of his property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation. This would be serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on his trade, occupation or business."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Smt. Jyoti Chakrawarty vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2025

It is succinctly observed [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] in para 18 : (Madhukar Rao case [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] , SCC OnLine MP) "18. ... If the argument on behalf of the State is accepted a property seized on accusation would become the property of the State and can never be released even on the compounding of the offence. The provisions of clause (d) of Section 39 have to be reasonably and harmoniously construed with other provisions of the Act and the Code which together provide a detailed procedure for the trial of the offences. If, as contended on behalf of the State, seizure of property merely on accusation would make the property to be of the Government, it would have the result of depriving an accused of his property without proof of his guilt. On such interpretation clause (d) of Section 39(1) of the Act would suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality. The interpretation placed by the State would mean that a specified officer under the Act merely by seizure of property of an accused would deprive him of his property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation. This would be serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on his trade, occupation or business."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Ramlal Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2025

It is succinctly observed [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] in para 18 : (Madhukar Rao case [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] , SCC OnLine MP) "18. ... If the argument on behalf of the State is accepted a property seized on accusation would become the property of the State and can never be released even on the compounding of the offence. The provisions of clause (d) of Section 39 have to be reasonably and harmoniously construed with other provisions of the Act and the Code which together provide a detailed procedure for the trial of the offences. If, as contended on behalf of the State, seizure of property merely on accusation would make the property to be of the Government, it would have the result of depriving an accused of his property without proof of his guilt. On such interpretation clause (d) of Section 39(1) of the Act would suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality. The interpretation placed by the State would mean that a specified officer under the Act merely by seizure of property of an accused would deprive him of his property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation. This would be serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on his trade, occupation or business."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Rajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2025

It is succinctly observed [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] in para 18 : (Madhukar Rao case [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] , SCC OnLine MP) "18. ... If the argument on behalf of the State is accepted a property seized on accusation would become the property of the State and can never be released even on the compounding of the offence. The provisions of clause (d) of Section 39 have to be reasonably and harmoniously construed with other provisions of the Act and the Code which together provide a detailed procedure for the trial of the offences. If, as contended on behalf of the State, seizure of property merely on accusation would make the property to be of the Government, it would have the result of depriving an accused of his property without proof of his guilt. On such interpretation clause (d) of Section 39(1) of the Act would suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality. The interpretation placed by the State would mean that a specified officer under the Act merely by seizure of property of an accused would deprive him of his property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation. This would be serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on his trade, occupation or business."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Bhishm Singh Thakur vs The Excise Commissioner Madhya Pradesh ... on 21 April, 2025

It is succinctly observed [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] in para 18 : (Madhukar Rao case [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] , SCC OnLine MP) "18. ... If the argument on behalf of the State is accepted a property seized on accusation would become the property of the State and can never be released even on the compounding of the offence. The provisions of clause (d) of Section 39 have to be reasonably and harmoniously construed with other provisions of the Act and the Code which together provide a detailed procedure for the trial of the offences. If, as contended on behalf of the State, seizure of property merely on accusation would make the property to be of the Government, it would have the result of depriving an accused of his property without proof of his guilt. On such interpretation clause (d) of Section 39(1) of the Act would suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality. The interpretation placed by the State would mean that a specified officer under the Act merely by seizure of property of an accused would deprive him of his property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation. This would be serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on his trade, occupation or business."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Satish Jaiswal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2025

It is succinctly observed [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] in para 18 : (Madhukar Rao case [Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC OnLine MP 322 : (2000) 1 MP LJ 289] , SCC OnLine MP) "18. ... If the argument on behalf of the State is accepted a property seized on accusation would become the property of the State and can never be released even on the compounding of the offence. The provisions of clause (d) of Section 39 have to be reasonably and harmoniously construed with other provisions of the Act and the Code which together provide a detailed procedure for the trial of the offences. If, as contended on behalf of the State, seizure of property merely on accusation would make the property to be of the Government, it would have the result of depriving an accused of his property without proof of his guilt. On such interpretation clause (d) of Section 39(1) of the Act would suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality. The interpretation placed by the State would mean that a specified officer under the Act merely by seizure of property of an accused would deprive him of his property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation. This would be serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on his trade, occupation or business."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Milind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 September, 2022

18. Pertinently, State of M.P Vs. Madhukar Rao5 affirmed the decision of the High Court in Madhukar Rao v. State of MP6, wherein Justice D.M Dharmadhikari, writing for the Full Bench, opined that the provision of Section 39(1)(d) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, providing for absolute vesting of seized property with State Government, without a finding by the Competent Court that the property was being used for the commission of an offence, runs afoul of the Constitutional provisions. It is succinctly observed in Para 18,
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - D K Paliwal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next