Fawazzx/trainnnn huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT J.H. Bhatia, J.Leave granted.Amendment be effected immediately.2. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.With consent of the Counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately.To state in brief, the wife and minor children of the present petitioner had filed Criminal Misc.Application No. 130/1997 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the J.M.F.C., Ichalkarnji.The application was contested by the petitioner.After hearing the parties, respondent No. 1 Mr. J.B. Anandgaonkar, the then J.M.F.C., passed the order dated 14/11/1997 allowing the maintenance application.That order was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 222/1997 before the Sessions Court, Kolhapur contending that the learned Magistrate had not made proper inquiry about the various aspects.That revision application was allowed by order dated 16/1/2001 and the maintenance application was remanded back to the J.M.F.C., Ichalkaranji for fresh inquiry.After fresh inquiry respondent No. 2 Mr. G.G. Bhansali passed the order dated 4/4/2003 granting maintenance to the wife and the children.The petitioner filed a complaint against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 219 and 220 of I.P.C. in the Court of J.M.F.C., Ichalkaranji on 24/11/2004, which was registered as M.A. Application No. 312/2004 and the matter was put up for arguments on the point of maintainability of such a complaint.After hearing the petitioner and after going through the relevant provisions of law, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ichalkaranji, dismissed the Revision Application with costs of Rs. 5000/-.The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the dismissal of his complaint by the Courts below.However, that order was set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge in Revision Application No. 222/1997 and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court.After remand respondent No. 2, while discharging his duties, as Judicial officer, considered the evidence led by both the parties and passed the order of the maintenance against the petitioner.The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 5000/- in view of his conduct in filing the complaint against the Judicial officer in respect of judicial orders passed by them.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the petitioner had not only made the complaint against the Judicial Officers but he had also made the allegations against several advocates, who were appointed by him from time to time, for not performing their duties in proper manner.The learned Additional Sessions Judge noted as follows:This conduct of the complainant should not be taken lightly and while dismissing this revision, heavy costs of Rs. 5000/- payable to the State deserves to be imposed against the complainant." These observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are perfectly justified.Such practice of making wild allegations against judicial officers only because they had passed certain orders against the particular party needs to be deprecated strongly.

Sections cited: Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code
...petitioners.We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.dns The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.( Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. ) ( Joymalya Bagchi, J. ) 2

Sections cited: Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) ( Sudip Ahluwalia-J.) 2

Sections cited: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code
of the Indian Penal Code along with added Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re : Chobi Sk. @ Chhabi Sk. & Anr....... petitioners Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir .....for the petitioners Ms. Anasua Sinha ....for the State Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that they are in custody for 46 days and it is also submitted that the incident arose with regard to a dispute over a boundary wall.The co-accused persons, similarly situated, have been enlarged on bail.Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail.In the event the petitioners fail to appear before the Trial Court, without any justifiable cause, the said Court shall be at liberty to cancel their bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court.This application for bail is, thus, allowed.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Sections cited: Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code
Item No. 66And In the matter of: Md. Sahidul Haque & Ors.- versus -The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 135 of 2013 dated 07.03.2013 under sections 326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.The application for anticipatory bail is not being pressed on behalf of the Petitioner No.1, Md. Sahidul Haque, and, therefore, it is dismissed.As regards the other Petitioners, we have seen the case diary.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

Sections cited: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code
13.8.13 Item No. 83 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 83And In the matter of: Ashoke Kumar Jana & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Milon Mukherjee Mr. Subir Debnath Mr. Debajit Kundu For the Petitioners Mr. Saibal Bapuli Mr. Arijit Ganguly For the State Mr. Soumen Dutta For the complainant The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Egra Police Station Case No. 192 of 2013 dated 18.06.2013 under Sections 409/379/120B of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Parties.We have seen the case diary and the other material on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

Sections cited: Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on admission.Having perused the impugned judgment, record of the trial Court and petition of appeal, we find this appeal being arguable.Hence, it is admitted for final hearing.Learned Panel Lawyer has taken notice of admission of this appeal on behalf of the respondent/State, hence no further notice is required to be sent to it.Appearing counsel for the parties also heard on I.A No.15697/2016 filed by appellant Lalla alias Jaychand Sondhiya under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C for suspension of his custodial sentences.Appellant Lalla alias Jaychand Sondhiya and another co-accused Shivdayal have been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 27.07.2016 by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No.287/2015 under Section 450 of the IPC to undergo ten years R.I with a fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 376-D to undergo R.I for twenty years with a fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 506 part-II of the IPC to undergo six months R.I with a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.All the jail sentences of the appellant have been directed to run concurrently.Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that during trial appellant Lalla alias Jaychand Sondhiya was released on bail and the FIR in relation to alleged offence of gang-rape and others was delayed as it was lodged on 3rd day from the incident and there were contradictions and variations between the report and deposition given by the prosecutrix (PW-7) as to whether sexual intercourse was committed or not by present appellant Lalla.It was further contended that according to FIR, when appellant Lalla pressed mouth of the prosecutrix, then she was raped only by another co-accused Shivdayal, but prosecutrix (PW-7) deposed before the trial Court that firstly Shivdayal committed rape with her, thereafter present appellant Lalla also committed rape with her and at that time Shivdayal had caught hold her hands.It was also contended by the appellant's counsel that according to the medical report and evidence of lady doctor, no any injury was found on the private parts and body of the prosecutrix and thus lady doctor was unable to record any definite opinion regarding recent intercourse.Thus, it was prayed that appellant's custodial sentences be suspended.P.C had taken defence that he has been falsely implicated, but it was suggested by his counsel to the prosecutrix in her cross-examination (para-10) that she herself had invited both the accused persons and the incident had happened with her consent.Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence on record, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we are not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail, suspending his jail sentences.Hence, I.A No.15697/2016 is dismissed and closed.Office is directed to list the appeal for final hearing in due course keeping in view that the appellant has been undergoing the jail sentences.

Sections cited: Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code
Shri K.S. Jha, counsel for the applicant.The earlier application was dismissed vide order dated 29.8.2016 in M.Cr.C. No. 14650 of 2016 with a direction that the applicant may surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that subsequently another co- accused has been granted bail, vide order dated 14.9.2016 passed in M.Cr.This is repeat application which was earlier dismissed with a direction to surrender before the trial court.In this view of the matter, this application is disposed of with a direction that the applicant shall surrender before the trial court and his regular bail application shall be considered by the trial court on the same day.The applicant can very well plead before the court that another co - accused has been granted bail by this court.The application is disposed of.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE bks

Sections cited: Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code
(ii) Whether the High Court can entertain application under Section 427, Cr.(a) from accused who, while undergoing sentence of imprisonment was sentenced on subsequent conviction to the imprisonment and whose appeal/revision against the subsequent sentence stood disposed of without any direction under Section 427, Cr.(b) from accused who, while undergoing sentence of imprisonment, was sentenced on subsequent conviction to the imprisonment without any direction under Section 427 of the Code and does not file appeal or revision against his subsequent sentence?The applicant along with others was prosecuted in Sessions Trial No. 21/84 decided on 12-4-1984 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of two years under Section 148, IPC and under Section 307/149 he was sentenced for a term of 5 years.It does not appear that any appeal was preferred against the convictions and sentences.The applicant along with others was again prosecuted in S.T. No. 45/84 decided on 25-9-1984 by the 11 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, and so far as the applicant is concerned, he was convicted under Section 395, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years.

Sections cited: Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code
As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally.The applicants have challenged the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the lerned Additional Sessions Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in ST No.347/2011 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149, 324 read with section 149, 323 read with Section 149 and 294 of I.P.C were framed against the applicants.The prosecution's case in short is that the complainant had lodged on FIR on 24.2.2011 against three accused persons in which name of the applicants was not mentioned.Thereafter, their names were added in the statements of the various witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the learned counsel for the applicants challenges the impugned order on the two important counts.Firstly, names of the applicants were not mentioned in the FIR.However, at present no appreciation of evidence can be done at this stage and therefore, the evidence given by the various witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C cannot be brushed aside at this stage.So far as the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C is concerned, it is true that there are five persons who assaulted the victim Mukendra Singh.The victim Mukendra Singh sustained three injuries.One was a lengthy incised wound on the cheek upto the ear, one lacerated wound in the skull whereas, one incised wound on right hand.Looking to the injuries, it cannot be said that the applicants were intended to kill the victim Mukendra Singh.Similarly there was no evidence to show that Mukendra Singh sustained any fatal injury.Under Such circumstances, no ingredient of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C is visible from the injuries caused to Mukendra Singh and therefore, no offence punishable under 307 of I.P.C. Is constituted for the victim Mukendra Singh.However, looking to his injury no.1 which is a very lengthy injury from cheek to the ear , it is clear that it must have caused disfiguration to him and therefore, instead of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C, offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C is constituted.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicants can be partly allowed and therefore, it is partly allowed.The impugned order dated 13.12.2012 is hereby set aside for the charge under Section 307 read with section 149 of I.P.C against all the accused persons.Instead of that charge the charge under Section 326 or 326 read with section 149 of I.P.C shall be framed against the accused persons.

Sections cited: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code
2. Facts of the case in short are that in the intervening night of 2/3-07-2007 from Village- Sadalatpur, information has been received that transformer from the field of Habib Mohd (PW-1) have been stolen.Makanlal, Lineman (PW-2) informed the incident to Sharad Chandra Banchode, Assistant Engineer (PW-3) who submitted a written report Ex.P-9 at Police Station- Raisen regarding theft of transformer.On the basis of which FIR Ex.08/05/2012 This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 31/12/2008 passed by Special Judge (Electricity) Raisen in Special Case No. 199/2007 convicting the appellants under section 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003 and sentenced to 6 months R.I and with fine of Rs.1000/-.P-11 was registered at Crime No. 313/2007 under section 2 Cr.A. No.73 of 2009 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003 against unknown persons.Police prepared Spot Map Ex.P-10 and also made seizure memo Ex.P-8 of the cover of the transformer on the spot.Police Station Raisen submitted a charge sheet against the appellants.Trial Court framed charges under section 379 IPC read with Section 136, Electricity Act against the appellants.Appellants abjured guilt.To substantiate case of the prosecution, statements of Habib Mohd. (PW-1), Makanlal Pawar, Lineman (PW-2), Sharad Chandra Banchode, Assistant Engineer (PW-3), and T.P. Tripathi, ASI (PW-4) were recorded.Defence of the appellants in trial court was that of false implication.After appreciating aforesaid evidence, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as above.This appeal has been preferred by the appellants on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper.Evidence of prosecution witnesses are suffering from material contradictions and omissions.Evidence of recovery is not reliable and unconvincing.Conviction is based on insufficient and doubtful evidence.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer supported the findings of conviction and sentence both.Makanlal, Lineman (PW-2) stated appellants were arrested on 30/07/2007 and on the basis of the information furnished by them, police made recovery.T.P. Tripathi, ASI (PW-4) stated that on the basis of information furnished by the appellants, copper wire has been recovered from Kabad shop.It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that during investigation appellants have already suffered custody period of about 8 days in this matter.No direct recovery has been proved by the police against them.No other such incident has been reported against them during pendency of the appeal.No useful purpose would be served in sending the appellants back to jail.Cr.A. No.73 of 2009For offence under section 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003 undergone jail sentence of 8 days seems to be just, proper and sufficient, if fine amount is enhanced.For offence under section 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003, 8 days undergone jail sentence and fine of Rs.3000/- seems to be just and proper and will meet the ends of justice.

Sections cited: Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on the question of admission.By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. the applicants have challenged the order dated 4.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.468/2012 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Sections 306/34 and 498/34 of IPC were framed against the applicants.The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 8.4.2012 the deceased was found dead.She was found hanged.The applicants are relatives of the husband of the deceased and the parents and other relatives of the deceased have made allegations against the applicants about the harassment.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the main grievance of the learned counsel for the applicants is that initially the brother of the deceased did not say anything about the harassment and after sometime he made false allegation against the applicants, therefore no charge under Section 306 or 306/34 of IPC can be framed.However, at this stage appreciation of evidence cannot be done.It cannot be said that the witnesses were telling a truth in their previous statements or now they are telling a truth.Under such circumstances, at this stage, it cannot be said that no charge under Section 306/34 of IPC can be framed.No illegality or perversity is visible in the impugned order dated 4.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Jabalpur.There is no basis by which the present revision can be accepted.Consequently, the revision filed by the present applicants is hereby dismissed at motion stage.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari

Sections cited: Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code
The dead body of Saira Bano was exhumed on 14.5.90 and on 15.5.90 second Post Mortem examination was performed.In this Post Mortem an incision mark from sternum down to pubic symphosis with stiches, a contusion extending across forehead was also noticed.Both these Post Mortem examinations were conducted by three Doctors.In the first P.M. examination the cause of death was found to be shock due to 85% burns.In the second P.M. examination it was observed that if skull has been earlier opened it might have revealed an injury if present.JUDGMENT V.S. Kokje, J.The applicants Nos. 3 and 4-Mohd.Umar and Moinuddin are his brothers.They reside at 358, Jawahar Marg, Indore except Mohd. Umar who resides at 19, Champabag, Indore, half a kilometre away.On 7.5.1990 at about 1.30 p.m., applicant No. 1 Moinuddin reported to the Police that Saira Bano was lying dead having burn marks on the body on the roof of Ghori Lodge.A merg was registered Under Section 471 Cr.P.C. The matter was investigated and a case Under Sections 498A and 306-B IPC was registered.The body was sent for Post Mortem and was handed over to Faqruddin for burial and it was accordingly graved.On 13.5.90, Rasul Ahmed, father of deceased Saira Bano complained to a Minister in the M.P. State Cabinate alleging that Saira Bano did not die a natural death but it was a case of dowry death.It was also written in the alleged complaint given to the Minister that the deceased Saira Bano was attacked with sharp edged weapon and then she was put a fire.The prosecution collected some documentary evidence in the shape of letters written by Saira Bano.On this material on record the charges were framed.It is contended on behalf of the applicants that there is no direct evidence on record sufficient to implicate any of the applicants.On the charge Under Section 302 IPC it cannot be lost sight of that the doctors performing second Post-Mortem examination have reported evidence of injuries by hard and blunt object present on the body.The blood and viscera from the dead body had been sent to F.S.L. Sagar.In both the P.M. Examinations, body was found to be burnt and in the first P.M. Examination 85% burns injury was reported.Let the record be sent back immediately to the Trial Court.

Sections cited: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code
Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S. 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 26.04.2015 by Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.237/2015 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 364A of IPC and S.11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act added S. 302, 201, 120B of IPC and added S.25/27 of Arms Act.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.Prosecution story indicates that seizure of motor-cycle and cell phone is made from the applicant.The call details have also been collected indicating that the applicant had made phone calls to the brother of the abductee.The prosecution has recorded confessional statement of the applicant u/S.27 of the Evidence Act, whereafter the dead body of the deceased was 2 M.Cr.

Sections cited: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code