Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laduram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2020
WP No. 28804/2019 & WP No. 717/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
(Manish S/o R.C. Agarwal Vs. State of M.P. and others)
(Laduram S/o Baluji Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and others)
INDORE dt. 13-02-2020
Dwivedi vs. State of M.P. passed in W.P. No.1830/2015 decided on 01.04.2015. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Nadim Khan vs. State of U.P. (2002 SCC Online All 371), decision of Rajasthan High Court in Sujiya @ Suje Khan and others vs. State of Rajasthan (2001 SCC Online Raj 1268); and three judgments of Gauhati High Court in Konsam Brojen Singh (supra), Akheto Sumi vs. Union of India (2014) 3 Gauhati Law Reports 760, and Akhil Gogoi vs. State of Assam and others (2018) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 453.
16. Learned Deputy Advocate General in support of his arguments has also placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal (1975) 3 SCC 198; A.K. Roy vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710; Ashok Kumar vs. Delhi Administration and others (1982) 2 SCC 403, State of U.P. vs. Hari Shankar Tewari, (1982) 2 SCC 490; State of U.P. vs. Sanjai Pratap Gupta (2004) 8 SCC 591; and Bankat Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1995) 4 SCC 598. Reliance is also placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Brijesh Dubey vs. State of M.P. and others, 2011 (4) MPLJ 252; Division Bench judgment of Gwalior Bench of this WP-22290-2019 & linked matters
Court in Rajeev Gupta vs. State of M.P. And others, 2020 Cr.L.J. 1423 Manu/MP/2117/2019; Division Bench judgments of this Court in Vikky Chandwani vs. Union of India and others in W.P. No.16954/2020 decided on 21.12.2020 and Vivek Khurana vs. State of M.P. in W.P. No.1362/2020 decided on 20.05.2020.
19. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Kaushalya Rani Vs. Gopal Singh AIR 1964 SC 260 held that special law means a law WP-22290-2019 & linked matters
General Things) (See : Page 146 13th Edition, 2012). The Supreme Court In P. V. Hemalatha Vs. Kattamkandi Puthiya Maliackal Saheeda And Another (2002) 5 SCC 548, In Paragraph No.33 Of The Report Held That: "When The Courts Are Confronted With Such A Situation, The Courts' Approach Should Be "To Find Out Which Of The Two Apparently Conflicting Provisions Is More General And Which Is More Specific And To Construe The More General One As To Exclude The More Specific".
In view of the law enunciated above, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sudeep Jain (supra) to the extent of what was held in its paragraph No.19 is overruled.
22. We shall now deal with the reference order made by the Division Ben
(Mohammad Rafiq) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey) (Vijay Kumar Shukla) Chief Justice Judge Judge Anchal Digitally signed by ANCHAL KHARE Date: 2021.04.22 16:46:07 +05'30'
saving score / loading statistics ...