Chhattisgarh Court July 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.
Munuwa Alias Ashok Vs. State of M.P. (C.G.)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT28(CG)
R.S. Garg, J. 1. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29-11-1989 passed in Sessions Trial No. 93/89 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon convicting the appellant under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Indian Arms Act,1959 sentencing him to undergo R.I. for five months (the period already undergone), has filed this appeal.2. The prosecution case in brief was that on 14-6-1989 the present appellant with an intention to commit murder of victim Ramesh Kumar caused an injury on his head by means of a sword. After receiving the report, the police agency came into action, sent the victim for his medical, prepared the panchnama and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. In accordance with the information, recorded the Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex. P-17). A further memorandum under Ex. P-15 was prepared and then a sword at the instance of the accused was recovered under Ex. P-13. On completion of the investigation, the challan was filed. The accused was put to trial. After hea...
Murlidhar Makhija and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT36(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. M.Cr.C. No. 372/2001 was filed by Akhilesh Jindani on 5-2-2001. When the matter carae-up for consideration on 6-2-2001; this Court directed that case diary be requisitioned and as an interim measure this Court further directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to the conditions as contained under Section 438(2) Cr.PC. The order dated 6-2-2001 did not give any liberty in favour of the applicant Akhilesh Jindani that during the pendency of the petition before the High Court he shall be entitled to make an application for grant of regular bail. The order was to a limited extent; the order simply said that as an interim measure ad-interim bail was given to him.2. M.Cr.C. No. 398/2001 was filed by Murlidhar Makhija, Mahcndra Kumar Makhija, Rupesh Makhija and Dharumal on 6-2-2001. On 9-2-2001 w...
Akhilesh Jindani (Jain) and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1660
R.S. Garg, J.1. M. Cr. C. No. 372/2001 was filed by Akhilesh Jindani on 5-2-2001. When the matter came-up for consideration on 6-2-2001; this Court directed that case diary be requisitioned and as an interim measure this Court further directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, subject to the conditions as contained under Section 438(2), Cr. P.C. The order dated 6-2-2001 did not give any liberty in favour of the applicant Akhilesh Jindani that during the pendency of the petition before the High Court he shall be entitled to make an application for grant of regular bail. The order was to a limited extent; the order simply said that as an interim measure ad-interim bail was given to him.2. M. Cr. C. No. 398/2001 was filed by Murlidhar Makhija, Mahendra Kumar Makhija, Rupesh Makhija and Dharumal on 6-2-2001. On 9-2-2001 w...
Shail Kumari Vs. Parmarath Singh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-24-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4121; I(2002)DMC790; 2001(4)MPHT14(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. The applicant-wife being aggrieved by the order dated 23-2-2001 passed in Criminal Revision No. 110/98 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli confirming the order dated 24-2-1998 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 76/93 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli rejecting her application for grant of maintenance, has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.PC.2. The facts in nut-shell are that the applicant filed a petition under Section 125, Cr.PC for grant of maintenance inter alia pleading that the applicant was married to the non-applicant, the non-applicant treated her with cruelty, turned her out of the house and contracted second marriage. She also submitted that after desertion by the non-applicant she came to her parents' house where she was maintaining herself but as her father had expired she is unable to maintain herself. In the premises aforesaid, she prayed for maintenance. The respondent inter alia contended that as the applicant did no...
Maniram Vs. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT25(CG)
R.S. Garg, J. 1. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 3-7-97, passed in Sessions Trial No. 437/94, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, convicting the appellant under Section 376(2)(f), IPC, sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 10 years, pay fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one year and under Section 354, IPC sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 2 years and pay fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 6 months, has filed this appeal.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court levelled the charges against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 376 read with Section 511, IPC and under Section 354, IPC. During the course of trial and after the evidence was brought on record, the Trial Court did not amend the charge nor required the appellant to answer a charge under Section 376(2)(f), IPC, but in its final judgment despite recording that charges...
Coal Mines Officers Association of India Vs. Coal India Limited and an ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT55(CG)
1. The appellant Coal Mines Officers Association of India being aggrieved by the order dated 28-5-2001, passed in Writ Petition Nos. 570/2001, 571/2001, 572/2001 and 573/2001, has filed this appeal under Section 10 of Letters Patent.2. The respondent No. 1 Coal India Limited is a Government Company and is having 8 subsidiary companies namely (1) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad, (2) Central Mining Planning & Design Institute Ltd., Ranchi, (3) Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi, (4) Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Sanctoria, (5) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur, (6) Northern Coalfields Ltd., Singrauli, (7) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Bilaspur, and (8) Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur. Bharatiya Koyala Adhikari Sangh filed three petitions, while the appellant Coal Mines Officers Association of India, filed W.P. No. 573/2001. The common grievance of all the writ petitioners was that the order directing transfers of as many as 595 high ranking officers of respondent No. 1 was not only contrary ...
Dalvinder Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-13-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1434; 2001(4)MPHT9(CG)
R.S. Garg, J. 1. The appellant being aggrieved by judgment, dated 13-9-1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 152 of 1994 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh convicting the appellant under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 sentencing him to undergo R.I. for ten years and pay fine of Rs. One lac in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months, has filed this appeal. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 8-6-1994 P.W. 6 Satyendra Pandey, Station House Officer, Police Station, Kharasia was going to Raigarh for attending certain Court proceedings, he saw a truck coming in a very high speed from opposite direction, he required the truck to stop but as the truck did not stop he felt suspicious and chased the said truck. The said truck could be intercepted at Madanpur barrier in Kharasia. The occupants of the truck were required to board down from the truck. The registration papers, licence and ...
Mayor, Nagar Palika Nigam Durg and Another Vs. Cheriyan Mathai
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT33(CG)
Fakhruddin, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18-8-99 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Durg, in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/1997 (Cheriyan Mathai v. Mayor, Nagar Palika Nigam, Durg and another) arising out of judgment and decree dated 12-2-1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 253-A/94. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff whereas the Lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment & decree passed by the Trial Court.2. Briefly stated facts are that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit for declaration that he is entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 8-1-1987 and consequential reliefs and also got mandatory injunction. The plaintiff was appointed as Deputy Overseer on 10-11-1967 in the Municipality of Chhindwara. By order dated 29-7-1973, he was promoted as Overseer. Later on, nomenclature of Post of the Overseer has been converted as Sub-E...
Chhotku Alias Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT84(CG)
ORDER1. The applicants accused being aggrieved by the order dated 11-1-2001, passed in Sessions Trial No. 7/2000, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, granting the application of Sukul Ram and Prabhu Ram for their examination as witnesses, have come to this Court.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the present applicants had committed murder of certain persons and as the eye-witness account was available against them, they were liable to be prosecuted. During the course of the trial, number of witnesses were examined. On 2-11-2000 Sukul Ram and Prabhu Ram, referred to as the proposed witnesses made an application duly supported with an affidavit that they are material witnesses of the trial, therefore, and as they had seen the accused persons committing the offence, their statements be recorded in the trial. The application was opposed by the present applicants, but the learned trial Court granted the application and directed that the two persons be examined as witn...
State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Bhugdev and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT116(CG)
R.S. Garg, J. 1. This judgment shall also dispose of Criminal Appeals No. 212/2001 (State v. Dhaneswar Prasad), No. 213/2001 (State v. Ghanshyam), No. 214/2001 (State v. Roshanlal), No. 215/2001 (State v. Shyamlal), No. 216/2001 (State v. Phoolbai) and No. 320/2001 (State v. Lalmati). 2. Present are the appeals under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant/Stale being aggrieved by the judgments dated 20-12-2000 delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raigarh, convicting the appellant under Section 36 of the M.P. Excise Act, 1950 and sentencing him till rising of the Court and pay fine of Rs. 10/-, has preferred these appeals. 3. Learned counsel for the Slate submits that though present are the cases where the State has filed an appeal under Section 377, Cr.P.C., but this Court must exercise its power under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C, because the Court below illegally framed the charges punishable under Section 36 of the M.P. Excise Act, while in fac...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »