Madhya Pradesh High Court Annual Digest Part 1: Citations 1-133

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 1 To 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 1331. Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1994] Owner Entitled To Seek Custody Of Property Subjected To Interim Attachment On Furnishing Security: MP High CourtTitle: Smt. Girja Devi Tiwari v. State of Madhya PradeshCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 1The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 ('1994 Ordinance') confers right upon person whose property is subjected to ad interim attachment to file an application under Section 8 for release of property, subject to furnishing security to the satisfaction of District Judge.The Bench comprising Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Devnarayan Mishra on perusing the provisions of the 1994 Ordinance, observed Section 8 of the 1994 Ordinance states, “when an order of interim attachment is made awaiting the same to become absolute, the person who is adversely affected by the ad interim attachment can make an application u/S.8 furnishing security to the District Judge concerned, who, in turn, is empowered to assess the sufficiency of the said security and thereafter pass appropriate order regarding ad-interim custody subject to the final attachment.”The appellant in this case held lease hold rights on behalf of Indian Oil Company qua a retail outlet at Satna. Consequent to the appellant and her husband being charged with offences punishable Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120(B) of IPC, the appellant's retail outlet was temporarily attached by an ad interim attachment order. The appellant thus moved an application under Section 8 of the 1994 Ordinance seeking permission of Trial Court to operate the said retail outlet, which was rejected by the Special Judge.2. Substituting Amendment Doesn't Obliterate Unamended Provision For Prior Offences, Can't Create Vacuum In Law At Any Point: MP High CourtTitle: U.S. (Upjeet Singh) Arora v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 2The Madhya Pradesh High Court has laid down that substituting a provision with an amended provision cannot lead to a vacuum in law, even if the amendment is to take effect at a later point.The Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Hirdesh, while dealing with an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('criminal misconduct by public servant'), said that the substitution of the said provision with the amended version of the same with effect from July 2018 would mean that the offences which had taken place on or after the said date would be governed by the amended provision, while those prior to the same would be dealt with by the unamended version of the provision.“If (the contention of learned senior counsel) is accepted that substitution leads to obliteration of the unamended Section even for offences which occurred prior to substitution is accepted then vacuum in law would be created thereby letting all those offenders go scott free who committed crime punishable under the unamended Section 13(1)(d) of the PC (Prevention of Corruption) Act. This can never be the intention of law,”The case involved allegations of misconduct on the part of the petitioner, who is a public servant, in the tender regarding purchase of Lanterns. The petitioner was alleged to have submitted a false inspection report, thereby causing loss to the government and corresponding financial benefit to the tenderer.3. After Acceptance Of Compassionate Appointment On A Particular Post A Person Is Precluded From Claiming A Higher Post: MP High CourtTitle: Vinay Kumar Athiya vs. State of Madhya PradeshCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 3The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) had observed that once an individual accepts a compassionate appointment, he/she is precluded from seeking or claiming a higher position. Referring to the Supreme Court's Judgment in the case of Rajasthan vs. Umrao Singh (1994), a bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal observed that once a compassionate appointment was given and accepted, the right to such appointment stood exhausted and a second consideration for a higher post was not warranted.The bench opined thus while dealing with a writ petition filed by one Vinay Kumar Athiya challenging his appointment as a constable with the state police, after his father's death, following a prior appointment as Bal Arakshak.4. Cannot Withdraw Resignation Once It Is Accepted: Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses Relief To Police Constable Who Resigned In 1994Title: Madhav Prasad Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 4The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, has emphatically laid down that once the application for resignation of an employee has been accepted, there cannot be any withdrawal of the same."...once the resignation was accepted, there cannot be any withdrawal as the bilateral relationship of Master and Servant has seized to exist," Justice Vivek Agarwal declared, while considering the plea of a Police Constable who...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Annual Digest Part 1: Citations 1-133

Siddhi Nigam

Tags