Chhattisgarh Court January 2001 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.
Roopchand Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-11-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT22(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. The applicant was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baloda Bazar, for offences punishable under Sections 279/338, IPC for having causedinjuries to one Sushil Kumar Jangade, on 7-4-93 at about 7.00 p.m. when the said person was going to attend his work.2. The allegations against the present applicant were that he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the victim. The victim in the said accident suffered a fracture of clavicle bone. After completing investigation, challan was filed against the present applicant on which Criminal Case No. 300/93 was registered. The applicant denied the charges, therefore, he was put to trial. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in bringing home the guilt. It accordingly convicted the appellant under Sections 279 and 338, IPC and also awarded sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- under each count and to undergo R....
Bharatram Vs. Abul Murad and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-05-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1405; 2001(1)MPHT17(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. Heard.2. The grievance of the present applicant appears to be that the amount of interim compensation has not been paid in full. 80% of the same has been deposited in the Bank. According to the applicant, he has number of liabilities to meet and he needs money for his treatment. The entire amount must be paid to him.3. Number of authorities and the earlier judgment of this Court show that the amount of the interim compensation is always paid to the person so that he can run his life smoothly meet the expenses and is not required to beg from others though having good and sufficient amount in his Bank. The submissions of the learned counsel that the applicant is required to meet certain exigencies and needs money for his further treatment cannot be said to be absolutelyperverse or irrational. Even otherwise, judgment of the Supreme Court in matter of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas and others (1994 ACJ 1) is in relation to the f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›