Chhattisgarh Court January 2003 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.
Ram Bharosa and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT33(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.Heard finally.1. The applicant is facing charges under Sections 466, 467 and 471, IPC. Criminal Case No. 167/2001 is pending since 16-12-2001 in the Court of JMFC, Gariyaband. In view of direction issued by Hon'ble High Court regarding expeditious disposal of the case, the learned Trial Judge closed the prosecution evidence, but subsequently the Court in its discretion considered that the examination of investigating officer is necessary for adjudication of the matter and as such fixed the case for recording the statements of Investigating Officer. The petitioner preferred revision and the IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur by order dated 17-6-2002 dismissed the revision on the ground that the provisions contained in Section 311, Cr.PC the Court has wide discretion to call for the witnesses for evidence at any stage.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court grossly erred in re-fixing the case for prosecution evidence which was earlier closed ...
Prem Singh Chauhan and anr. Vs. L.M. Pandey
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT38(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. It is submitted by Counsel for the parties that parties are more or less broadly agreed to settle the matter and they want to compromise the matter amicably with certain terms mentioned in the application and further they are desirous to refer the matter to Lok Adalat for settlement in view of provisions contained in the new Section 89 of CPC, so that the dispute can be settled finally. It is pertinent to quote the new Section 89 which has been introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure. This provides for settlement of disputes etc., and reads as under :--'89. Settlement of disputes outside the Court--(1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for- (a) arbitration; (b) conciliat...
Sheikh Rasul Vs. Anwar Haque and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT14(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin 1. Heard. 2. This revision is against the order dated 11-9-2001 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Mungeli, in Civil Suit No. 26-A/99, whereby the application for bringing L.Rs. of the plaintiff on record filed by applicant has been rejected.3. It is submitted that Niyazbi filed a Civil Suit No, 26-A before the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Mungeli against the respondent for declaration of title and permanent injunction of the suit land. The plaintiff Niyazbi had no issues and her husband had died as far back as in the year 1946. It is further submitted that as the plaintiff Niyazbi was old and infirm and there was no one in the family to look after her works, she used to take help from her brother's son namely Sheikh Rasul who is the present petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Niyazbi died on 30-3-2001. After death of plaintiff, the present petition filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3, CPC informing the Trial Court about the death of plaintif...
Laxminarayan Giri and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: II(2003)DMC81
K.H.N. Kuranga, C.J.1. Heard both the Counsels on M. (Cr.) P. No. 2441 of 2002.This Court vide order dated 22.10.2002 directed the State to get the appellant No. 1 examined in Apollo Hospital and if he is found to be suffering from Ishaemic Heart Disease to get him necessary treatment and thereafter submit a report to this Court. On 8.1.2003 learned Counsel for the State submitted that the appellant No. 1 was got examined at Apollo Hospital and the report was received. On that date he was directed to make a statement as to what treatment has been given to the appellant No. 1. Thereafter on 15.1.2003 learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that he has received a communication from Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur stating that the facility for the cardiac evaluation and coronary angiography cardiac angioplasty was available and he would make a statement on 20th January, 2003 whether State would get the appellant No. 1 treated or not. Mr. Koshy submitted th...
Joginder Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT11(CG)
ORDERK.H.N. Kuranga, C.J. 1. Heard both the Counsel. 2. This petition under Section 438 of Cr.PC has been filed by applicant Joginder Singh for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 125 of 2002 registered in Tumgaon Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 49-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act (for short 'the Act'). 3. In the first instance learned Counsel appearing for the State-respondent submitted that this petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.PC by the applicant is not maintainable in view of Section 59-A of the Act. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no prima facie case made out by the prosecution for the commission of the offence under Section 49-A of the Act and therefore the argument of the learned Counsel for the State-respondent that this petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.PC is not maintainable, cannot be accepted. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the case of the prosecution is that on 18-...
Sandeep Shouri @ Kake Shouri Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT17(CG)
ORDERP.C. Naik, J.1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order of externment passed against the petitioner on 15-1-2002 by the District Magistrate, Surguja and,the order dated 29-6-2002 passed by the State Government rejecting his appeal.2. In short, the facts giving rise to the petition are that on 25-7-2000 Superintendent of Police, Surguja forwarded a report to the District Magistrate, Surguja, for initiating proceedings under Section 5 (2) (b) and to take action under Section 5 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam (in short 'the Adhiniyam') against the petitioner. On receiving the report, the District Magistrate on being satisfied that it was necessary to initiate the said proceedings, registered the same and held an enquiry. During the course of the enquiry, statements of 7 persons were recorded in the presence of the District Prosecution Officer. On a consideration of the material on record, the District Magistrate on 17-10-2001, till which time the enquiry continued, came ...
Vivek Bishwash Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT23(CG)
ORDERK.H.N. Kuranga, C.J. 1. Heard both the Counsel. 2. This petition is listed for admission today. With the consent of both the Counsel the petition is disposed of on merits. 3. Applicant-Vivek Bishwash is an accused in Sessions Trial No. 295 of 2000 pending on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker. He was charge-sheeted for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 342, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial was almost at the end and the case is posted for defence evidence. On behalf of the applicant an application was filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') for recalling P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and to further cross-examine them on the point of the age of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the mark-sheet of the prosecutrix was also produced and it was on record. Counsel submits that though P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were cross-examined at length, by inadvertence...
Hemendra Bhai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR402]; (2003)IILLJ645CG; 2003(2)MPHT1(CG)
ORDERK.H.N. Kuranga, C.J. 1. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, one of the partners of the firm, namely, M/s. Dayalal Meghji & Co. prays for quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 872 of 1999 (State of M.P. v. Hemendra Bhai s/o late Daya Bhai Manik) pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. 2. Few facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are these:-- The applicant is the partner of the firm M/s. Dayalal Meghji & Co. (hereinafter referred to as 'the firm'), a firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 having its principal place of business at Malviya Road, Raipur. The firm carries on business of manufacturing and selling of Badshahi Farmaish Bidi, popularly known as 345 Bidi since last several decades. 3. The Supreme Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 465 of 1986 (M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu and others), reported in (1996) 7 SCC 756, has given certain directions. As per the said directions of...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›