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.
Sheoprasad Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT93(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. By this petition under Section 482, Cr.PC, the petitioner seeks quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3567/2000, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur.2. From the records of the Trial Court, it appears that Crime No. 12/2000 was registered against the applicant-accused for offences punishable under Section 41(1)(d) Cr.PC/379, IPC. The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur received an anonymous inland letter wherein it was mentioned by some public spirited (?) person that accused Shiv Das Manikpuri and Tribhuvan, both r/o Deorikhurd were residing at Naharnali adjoining some public tank. The said letter further said that from unknown source, the said informant learnt that those two persons found a bag containing hundred rupees and five hundred rupees notes, totaling Rs. 5 lacs and the said persons, who were Rikshaw pullers by vocation, were spending the money. The said letter further said that some investigation or inquiry be made into...
Haricharan Ramteke Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT51(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. Heard.2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as within 60 days of the date, when the charge was framed, the trial did not conclude, under the provisions of Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.3. Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that 'If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the Magistrate otherwise directs'.4. Shri Verma. learned counsel for the applicant submits that as the charges were framed on 28-11-2000 and the first date for recording the evidence was fixed for 22-12-2000, therefore, 28-11-2000 must be taken to be the first dat...
Dharam Singh and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC76
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. By this petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants seek to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 29.5.2000 passed in S.T. No. 38/2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balod (Durg) framing the charges against the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A, I.P.C.2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Teminbai d/o Bhikamlal and Hiribai was married to applicant No. 1 Dharamsingh somewhere in the year 1992. The applicant No. 2 Sukhmabai is the mother of Dharamsingh and was mother-in-law of deceased Teminbai. Out of the wedlock Dharamsingh and Teminbai were blessed with three children.3. According to the applicants, Teminbai was keeping unwell for long time, therefore, time and again she was treated by the doctors and in the 3rd week of January, 1999, she was admitted in the hospital. On 20.1.1999 said Teminbai consumed poison and thereby committed suicide.4. Immediate...
Timan Lal Sahu Vs. Shivcharan Lal Sahu
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT64(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. By this petition under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code the applicant/ plaintiff seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 21-12-1998 passed in M.J.C. No. 17 of 1993 by learned Fourth AdditionalDistrict Judge, Bilaspur, setting aside the ex parte decree passed in favour of the present applicant in Civil Suit No. 32-A of 1990.2. It is not in dispute before me that the present plaintiff filed Civil Suit No, 32-A of 1990. In the said suit the summons were duly served upon the defendant who made his appearance through his counsel but later on proposed to remain ex parte, therefore, vide order dated 30-1-1992 the Court proceeded ex parte, recorded ex parte evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses and delivered the ex parte judgment on 24-8-1992.3. Almost after about one year of the ex parte judgment and decree the defendant/non-applicant made an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC seeking the relief of setting aside of the ex ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›