Chhattisgarh Court December 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT55(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.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.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.3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examina...
Lodhari Ram @ Tulsi Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT7(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. Impugning the correctness, validity and propriety of the judgment dated 1-10-1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 54/1999 by the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigarh, convicting the appellant under Section 307, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years, the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. The facts in nut-shell are that on 22-12-1998 at about 10 p.m. when the present appellant and his father Singharam were sitting in their house, the appellant made a complaint to his own father that because of the complaint of his father, he is likely to go to jail, the father did not say anything. Taking an exception to it, the appellant had hit his father on head with a baton which caused an injury on the head. The said injury was 1 x -5 cm. Another con-tuision was 6 x -5 cm. The victim was immediately referred to the hospital where his injuries were repaired and he was referred to the Radiologist. According to the report Ex. P-12, the Radiolo...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Naresh Aswani and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT13(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. This order shall also dispose of Civil Revision No. 1628/2000 (Bank of Baroda v. Shyamlal G. Ashwani).2. The applicant defendant by this petition seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 27-3-2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 14-B/1999 whereunder the plaintiff's application under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act to lead the secondary evidence, has been allowed.3. The facts necessary for disposal of the revision are that the plaintiff/ non-applicant filed a suit before the Trial Court seeking decree for Rs. 67,500/-with interest and costs against the applicant-Bank, inter alia, pleading that on a forged cheque/withdrawal form, the plaintiff's account was debited and as the act of applicant-Bank was of negligence, was covered with fraud, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the money. The defendant in its written statement contended that in the regular course of business, the cheque was cleared and that they are not answerable to the...
Nathu Ram Rathour Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT1(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. By this petition, under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks to challenge his conviction recorded under Sections 323 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences awarded to him for commission of the said offence.2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the evidence available on the record and the findings recorded by the two Courts, the conviction cannot be challenged. He, however, submits that looking to the age of the applicant which is not less than 70 years and the fact that he is the first offender, the Court should have treated him under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or in any case instead of awarding the jail sentence, could impose fine amount to compensate the victim.3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that present is a case where the applicant, without showing any respect to his own age, entered into a fight and caused injuries to the...
Ku. Nazo Alias Nazia Begum Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT39(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, Ag. C.J.1. By this petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 7-9-1994 passed in sessions Trial No. 65/91 by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur.2. The grievance of the present applicant appears to be that on the date of the incident she was below 17 years of age, therefore, under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act she should be tried by a competent Juvenile Court and as the Court below has refused to make an enquiry into her age, the order passed by court below deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that on an earlier occasion the very same question relating to the age of the present applicant had come to the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 283/1991 and the High Court in its judgment dated 10-2-1993 has clearly observed that the girl was about 18 years of age, therefore, there is no need of enquiry. Learned counsel fo...
Kamlesh Kumar and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT26(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. From the facts, it appears that petitioners' land was acquired by the State Govt. and certain compensation was fixed for being paid to the petitioners. It appears that compensation was paid ion 6-5-1997. The respondents Krishnalal and Reshamlal made an application to the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said application was not being decided, therefore, the said persons filed W.P. No. 4219/98 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The said petition was finally disposed of on 21-9-1998 with direction to the respondent Land Acquisition Officer to decide the representation of Krishnalal and Reshamlal (respondent Nos. 4 & 5) in this petition. The saidapplication was ultimately decided on 31-3-2000. The Collector decided the application and found that present was a fit matter where a reference was required to be made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›