Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Decided On : Dec-29-2000

Court : Chhattisgarh

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'M.S. Chauhan',
			(int) 1 => 'M.S. Chauhan'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Court',
			(int) 1 => 'Court',
			(int) 2 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 3 => 'M.S. Chauhan',
			(int) 4 => 'the Lower Court',
			(int) 5 => 'Trial Court',
			(int) 6 => 'The Trial Court',
			(int) 7 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 8 => 'The Trial Court',
			(int) 9 => 'Criminal Revision'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '23',
			(int) 1 => '21',
			(int) 2 => '23'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'five years'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Shri M.S. Chauhan'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Chhatrapal',
			(int) 1 => 'Chhatrapal',
			(int) 2 => 'M.S. Chauhan'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'M.S.',
			(int) 1 => 'MS'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '496132',
			'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000',
			'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Chhattisgarh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-12-29',
			'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '496132'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'M.S. Chauhan',
		(int) 1 => 'M.S. Chauhan'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Court',
		(int) 1 => 'Court',
		(int) 2 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 3 => 'M.S. Chauhan',
		(int) 4 => 'the Lower Court',
		(int) 5 => 'Trial Court',
		(int) 6 => 'The Trial Court',
		(int) 7 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 8 => 'The Trial Court',
		(int) 9 => 'Criminal Revision'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '23',
		(int) 1 => '21',
		(int) 2 => '23'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'five years'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Shri M.S. Chauhan'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Chhatrapal',
		(int) 1 => 'Chhatrapal',
		(int) 2 => 'M.S. Chauhan'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'M.S.',
		(int) 1 => 'MS'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '496132',
		'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000',
		'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Chhattisgarh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-12-29',
		'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '496132'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'M.S. Chauhan',
			(int) 1 => 'M.S. Chauhan'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Court',
			(int) 1 => 'Court',
			(int) 2 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 3 => 'M.S. Chauhan',
			(int) 4 => 'the Lower Court',
			(int) 5 => 'Trial Court',
			(int) 6 => 'The Trial Court',
			(int) 7 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 8 => 'The Trial Court',
			(int) 9 => 'Criminal Revision'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '23',
			(int) 1 => '21',
			(int) 2 => '23'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'five years'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Shri M.S. Chauhan'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Chhatrapal',
			(int) 1 => 'Chhatrapal',
			(int) 2 => 'M.S. Chauhan'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'M.S.',
			(int) 1 => 'MS'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '496132',
			'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000',
			'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Chhattisgarh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-12-29',
			'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '496132'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'M.S. Chauhan',
		(int) 1 => 'M.S. Chauhan'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Court',
		(int) 1 => 'Court',
		(int) 2 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 3 => 'M.S. Chauhan',
		(int) 4 => 'the Lower Court',
		(int) 5 => 'Trial Court',
		(int) 6 => 'The Trial Court',
		(int) 7 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 8 => 'The Trial Court',
		(int) 9 => 'Criminal Revision'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '23',
		(int) 1 => '21',
		(int) 2 => '23'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'five years'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Shri M.S. Chauhan'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Chhatrapal',
		(int) 1 => 'Chhatrapal',
		(int) 2 => 'M.S. Chauhan'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'M.S.',
		(int) 1 => 'MS'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '496132',
		'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000',
		'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Chhattisgarh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-12-29',
		'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '496132'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

FAC: M.S. Chauhan, M.S. Chauhan

ORG: Court, Court, the Trial Court, M.S. Chauhan, the Lower Court, Trial Court, The Trial Court, the Trial Court, The Trial Court, Criminal Revision

CARDINAL: 23, 21, 23

DATE: five years

PRODUCT: Shri M.S. Chauhan

PERSON: Chhatrapal, Chhatrapal, M.S. Chauhan

GPE: M.S., MS