Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Guddu & Durga Shankar Yadav & others Vs. The State of M.P.
Law laid down - To substantiate a charge under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34, it must be shown that the criminal act complained against was done by one of the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention of the both. Common intention has to be distinguished from same or similar intention. Full Judgment
Dharmendra Jadon vs. State of M.P.
Radheshyam Soni Vs. State of M. P.
Law Laid Down - Scope under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Full Judgment
Shrawan vs. State of M.P.
Law Laid down - 1. The conviction can be based on the testimony of child witness. 2. Even if, the witness turned hostile, it would not affect the case, if there is other evidence on record to prove the prosecution case Full Judgment
Manoj @ Bablu Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Jaswinder Singh and another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Law Laid Down - * Decision of Criminal Court on the basis of compromise or an acquittal cannot be treated that the candidate possesses good character, which may make him eligible, as the criminal proceedings are with the view to find culpability of commission of offence whereas the appointment to the civil post is in view of his suitability to the post. The test for each of them is based upon different parameters and therefore, acquittal in a criminal case is Full Judgment
Vishwanath Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others
Law Laid Down - S.52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 – in absence of seizure of forest produce or its Panchanama, entire confiscation proceedings initiated in respect of vehicle cannot be allowed to sustain. Full Judgment
M/s Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited Vs. Northern Coal Field Limited
Law Laid Down - * Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the appointment of Arbitrator without the intervention of the Court whereas appointment with the intervention of the Court is contemplated under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. * The limitation for filing a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is contemplated by the Limitation Act particularly Article 137 of the Schedule-I of the Limitation Act, 1963. The limitation does not start from the notice but Full Judgment
Baiju @ Vijay Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Sudeep Patel Vs. State of M.P. and others
Law Laid Down - Parity between the preventive detention and the externment proceedings. Reliance is placed on the case of State of Maharashtra and others v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, (2008) 3 SCC 613. Full Judgment
Shiv Pratap Singh Tomar Vs. Smt. Seema Tomar and Others
Law laid down - (I) A defendant may cross-examine a co-defendant or any other witness who has given evidence against him, and reply on such evidence though there is no issue joined between them. (II) Once it is demonstrated by a defendant that his interest is not common and there is a conflict of interest affecting the interest of co-defendant then the defendant can cross-examine the witnesses of co-defendant for reaching to the truth. (III) Condition precedent for giving an opportunity to a Full Judgment
Shiv Narayan and others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - (i) Even after acquittal of the charge under section 302 read with section 149 IPC, the remaining accused can be convicted under section 302 IPC without there being separate charge u/s 302 IPC. The same is a curable irregularity. (ii) To claim the right of self defence, there must be real danger to life or grievous hurt. Full Judgment
Alok Sharma Vs. Smt. Nisha Chaubey
Jagdish Valecha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
Caparo Engineering India Ltd Vs. Pradhanmantri Engineering Shramik Sanghthan
S.N. Vijaywargiya Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Law Laid Down - In terms of Section 170(1) of the CrPC, the Investigating Agency is mandated to produce an accused in custody for the non-bailable offence. The argument that the Court should have issued summons in respect of such offence stands rejected. An order dated 20.10.2016 of a Single Bench of this Court in MCRC No.17501/2016 (Rajendra Kori vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) - is overruled. Accused has no right to insist upon investigation by a particular agency – whether State Full Judgment