Chhattisgarh Court March 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.
Lakshmi Prasad Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT15(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. The learned Trial Court in its order has observed that the counsel for the applicant did not challenge the conviction, but pressed the appeal only on the ground of quantum of sentence. The learned Court below without referring to the merits of the matter and even without referring to the facts which led to the conviction of the appellant, observed that the appellant has undergone trauma of Court proceedings for 25 years or more, therefore, the sentence of two years deserves to be reduced to the period of six months. The Court below also observed that the period of detention between 16-10-76 to 17-11-76 be given as set off under Section 428, Cr.PC.2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has instructions to contend before this Court that the appeal was pressed on the merits also, but the learned Appellate Court did not consider the merits. According to him, the order passed by the Court below deserves to be set aside.3. On the other hand, learned counsel...
State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Mustak Ahmad Khan
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT29(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. Heard. 2. The applicant/State is aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manendragarh, in Criminal Case No. 142/2000, for the charges punishable under Sections 294 and 324, IPC.3. The prosecution allegations were that in relation to timings of departure of buses, there was some altercation between the complainant and the accused. The accused after oppressing the complainant, dashed his hand against the body of the vehicle and caused him an injury by finger nails. It appears that because of some settlement out of the Court, the complainant did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. He stated before the Court that because of certain altercation, he had suffered some injuries, but neither the accused dashed his hand against the body of the vehicle, nor caused him injuries by finger nails. The prosecution had examined P.W. 2 Dr. Pooran Singh to prove the nature of the injuries, the doctor observed ...
Amar Singh Gaikwad Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT42(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. A perusal of the petition would show that it contains number of typing mistakes and misstatements of facts. Though, the petitioner is seeking relief against Gram Panchayat but has not proposed to make the said Gram Panchayat as a party. In para 6, the petition says that by issuing the impugned order-Annexure- P/5, the respondents 2, 3 and 5 have acted against statutory provisions. To the surprise, there is no respondent No. 5 in the petition.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in place of No. 5 figure '4' should have been shown. Even if, figure '4' is substituted in place of figure '5' that would not meet the allegations made in paragraph 5.5 of the petition which says that the respondent No. 4 was appointed as village Incharge.3. I fail to understand how such petition could be filed in the High Court. When a petition is required to be filed in the High Court, the counsel filing the petition would not only be responsible towards the client, but shall...
Commandant 11th Battalion and ors. Vs. Mahendra Singh and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT70(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 18-2-2000 passed in O.A. No. 1207/89 (Mahendra Singh v. Commandant 11th Battalion); O.A. No. 3163/89 (Hemlal Thapa v. Commandant 11th Battalion); and O.A. No. 82/93 (Pooran Bahadur v. Commandant 11th Battalion). The judgment shall dispose of W.P. No. 6117/2000, 6119/2000 and 6120/2000 as the above referred Original Applications were disposed of by the common order dated 18-2-2000. 2. The employee in each of the cases was employed by the petitioners as a recruit and in accordance with Rule 37 of the Vishesh Sashastra Bal Niyam, 1973 they were required to pass certain trainings. As each of the respondents/recruits could not pass within a period of nine months, the period was extended by six months in accordance with Rule 37 and as each of the employees could not acquire the required proficiency within the ex...
Kishor Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT40(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.Heard1. Diary of Crime No. 162/98 of police station Sahaspur Lohara, Distt. Kawardha, for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC perused.2. It appears that somewhere between 7-12-98 and 9-12-98 Telephone cables were stolen; thereafter, co-accused was arrested, who in his memorandum made certain allegations against the present applicant. The applicant was arrested on 15-5-2000, but no recoveries were made from him. Barring the statement of the co-accused contained in the memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the case diary does not contain any other evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged crime.3. It is most unfortunate that in a case like present, the Court below did not consider present to be a fit case for admitting the applicant to bail. Even though he is in jail for last more than 10 months. This Court had been repeatedly saying that changed circumstances is not a simple technical term. It is unfortunate that the Courts below are rej...
S.S. Sharma Vs. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT53(CG)
ORDERW.A. Shishak, C.J. 1. Heard.2. The writ petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 6-10-2000. Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides that the order of suspension shall stand revoked on expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of the order of suspension in case copy of the charges and other documents referred to in sub-rule (2-a) arc not issued to such Govt. Servant. Rule 9 (2-a) states :'Where a Government servant is placed under suspension under clause (a) of sub-rule (1), the order of suspension shall contain the reasons for making such order and where it proposed to hold an enquiry against such Government servant under Rule 14, a copy of the articles of charges, the statement of imputations of misconduct or mis-behaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained shall be issued or caused to be issued by the disciplinary authority to such Government servant ...
Shekh Lala Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-21-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4148; 2001(4)MPHT17(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. Heard.2. Diary of Crime No. 164 of 2000 registered by Excise Department, Distt. Durg, for the offence punishable under Section 34(1)(a) of Excise Act, perused.3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since 20-10-2000, the applicant is in jail and as there is no tike hook of early disposal of the trial at the Magisterial level and as for offence punishable under Section 34(1)(a), the maximum awardable sentence is one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- which may extend to Rs. 5,000/-, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State placed his reliance on the language of Section 59-A of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 submits that more than 50 bulk litres of liquor was recovered from the applicant and as the prosecution is opposing the application for grant of bail, the application cannot be allowed.5. Section 59-A, has been inserted in the Act by M.P. Act No. 22/2000 with effect from 4-8-2000. Section 59-A provides that c...
Union of India Vs. Shiyaram Rathore and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-21-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC202; 2001(3)MPHT12(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. Heard.2. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30-6-99, though in the revision memo it is stated that it has been filed against the order dated 30-6-99.3. The tacts leading to this petition are that respondent No. 1 filed a Civil Suit for recovery of damages on account of the injuries suffered by him in a railway accident. During the course of the trial, the defendants raised a question that the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court and the claim should have been lodged before the Railway Accidents Tribunal. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, while answering the question No, 6 observed that the suit was cognizable by the Civil Court. It accordingly decreed the suit.4. Ordinarily, against the judgment and decree, a regular first appeal lies to the High Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the defendant/applicant for the reasons best known to him did not challenge the correctness, ...
Gyan Chand Vs. Balkrishna Shrivastava and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT5(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. Parties are heard on the question of admission.2. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant firstly argued that as there arc over writings in the sale-deed Ex. P-3, the First appellate Court was not justified in placing its reliance upon the same.3. In my opinion, the acceptance or rejection of the genuineness of a document is well within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court or the Appellate Court. If the Appellate Court after reappreciating the evidence, feels necessary to place reliance upon a document, then it acts within its jurisdiction. Unless it is shown that the finding is perverse, the second Appellate Court would have no jurisdiction to interfere with the said finding. In the present case, I do not find any perversing in the said finding.4. Shri Agrawal next submitted that as he is a bona fide purchaser for value/consideration, the suit for possession would not lie against him. The argument is misconceived. Present is not a case of purchase by a pers...
Krishna Kumar Dewangan and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Other ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT1(CG)
ORDER1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 7-8-1998 passed in transfer application No. 3440/88 (Krishna Kumar Dewangan and another v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by the State Administrative Tribunal.2. The case of the petitioner No. 1 before the Tribunal was that he was appointed as Part time Secretary in Gram Panchayat with effect from 23-7-79 on a monthly salary of Rs. 30/-. According to the petitioner No. 2 he was appointed as a Part time Secretary w.e.f. 1-4-79. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed on honourary basis and no remuneration was paid to him. The petitioners say and submit that the State Government took a policy decision to absorb all part time secretaries employed by the Gram Panchayals appointed prior to 7-9-79, in the Government service on the post of Gram Sahayak. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 3, the Joint Director, Panchayat and So...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »