Chhattisgarh Court February 2003 Judgments
Jagdish Kumar Dhongara and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT25(CG)
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J. 1. The accused/applicants have preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, being aggrieved by the order dated 22nd January, 2003, passed by the learned Special Judge, Durg, by which the learned Special Judge has not accepted the application under Section 317 of Cr.PC dispensing with the presence of the accused/applicants and summoned them through warrant. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, for the disposal of this criminal revision are that the applicants are facing a criminal case punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the IPC. The matter was fixed for evidence on 21-1-2003 and 22-1-2003. On that date as per the petition, the petitioner were not able to appear before the Court and presented an application under Section 317 of the Cr.PC. The same was rejected by the learned Trial Court and ordered for issuance of the warrant of arrest. 3. I have ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramlakhan Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT18(CG)
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant Ramlakhan Gupta, being aggrieved by the order dated 26-9-2002 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Special Criminal Case No. 53/2002 by which the learned Special Judge has framed the charges under Section 374 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(vi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. Learned Counsel for the accused/applicant argued that OH the basis of statement of Jeethram, Maniyaro and other witnesses the offence under Section 3(1)(vi) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act is not prima facie made out. Even the learned Special Judge has framed the charges against the present accused/applicant without any evidence therefore, the revision may be allowed and the charges may be quashed. However, he very candidly conceded that as far as charge under Section 374, IPC is concerne...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Shankar Rao Ghode Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT21(CG)
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J.1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC has been preferred by the accused/applicant against the order dated 11-11-2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 212/2002 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the charges under Sections 304B and 306 of the IPC have been framed against the accused/applicant.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The learned Counsel for the accused argued that as per the prosecution evidence, he is not disputing the charge framed against the accused/applicant under Section 304B, IPC however, on the basis of the evidence available on the record offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out, therefore, this part of the charge be quashed by allowing the revision.4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Government Advocate supported the order of the learned Trial Court.5. I have perused the statements of the witnesses. The statement of Hemant Kanaskar, brother of the deceased, has sta...
Tag this Judgment!Punam Chand Golcha and anr. Vs. State of C.G.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: II(2003)DMC185
K.H.N. Kuranga, C.J.1. This petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Punam Chand Golcha and Pratila Golcha for grant of bail. They are the accused in Crime No. 112 of 2002 registered in Ranchirai Police Station, District Durg for the offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of I.P.C.2. Name of deceased is Gayatri, daughter-in-law of the applicants. The case of prosecution is that the applicants were demanding dowry of gold ornaments and harassing the deceased; on account of that she committed suicide by hanging in the house at Bilhari on 28.10.2002 at 8.00 a.m.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the father of the deceased was present in the house on the date of the incident. In fact, the applicants and the father of the deceased took the deceased to the hospital but she died oil the way. The father of the deceased was also present during the inquest, but he did not make any complaint against the applicants. He filed...
Tag this Judgment!KhorbahrIn Bai Vs. Tulsa Ram and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT57(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Briefly stated facts are that Khorbahrin Bai filed Claim Petition No. 17/85, which was dismissed on 31-8-88 for non-prosecution. The said claimant thereafter filed an application of restoration which was registered as MJC No. 8/88, this application was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 7-4-98 and she thereafter again filed an application which was registered as MJC No. 5/99, this was also dismissed on 21-9-99 for non-prosecution. Another application for restoration was filed, the same was registered as MJC No. 17/99 which was restored by order dated 20-4-2001. Before Claims Tribunal the application was also filed for condoning the delay and the grounds urged for condonation are that the applicant's husband died in an accident occurred in the year 1988 and she is very poor, old and infirm. At the time of accident she was 55 years of age, now she must be about 70 years old. She was somehow or the other passing her days by resorting to begging and she has no ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ988
ORDER1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the order dated 13-12-2002 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti (Janjgir -- Champa) cancelled the bail granted to the accused/applicant vide order dated 4th October, 2002 passed on the bail application filed by the accused/applicant in connection with the offence registered at Crime No. 158/2002 by the police station-Baradwar against him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that on 15th September, 2002 prosecutrix Malti Kumari R/o. Gidhouri submitted a written report to the Officer Incharge of Police Station-Baradwar that Surendra Kumar Patel lured her by giving promise to her that he will marry and under that allurement accused had sexual intercourse with her many times during last one year and now she is pregnant by 8 months. Upon this report the Officer Incharge of Police Station-Baradwar r...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Lal Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT25(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. Respondent No. 2 is also present.2. Heard.3. Applicant Bharatlal Sahu whose daughter was to be married sold the agricultural land for about Rs. 1,46,000 and he kept the money in his house, theft was committed. He lodged the report regarding the theft of Rs. 1,45,000/-. Offence was registered. During the investigation it was revealed that his son Parmeshwar had committed theft and after committing the theft he handed over it to various persons including respondent No. 2. Certain recoveries have been made. The applicant filed application for releasing the amount recoverd. State alone objected. Even the respondent No. 2 did not raise any objection. Learned Magistrate in its impugned order dated 6-7-2002 has held that prima fade the amount appears to be that of the applicant but the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer on the ground that the applicant has not mentioned in the FIR the numbers of currency notes which bear. Then the applicant filed a revision again fo...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Narayan Khandelwal and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT49(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. This revision has been filed by Kamal Narayan Khandelwal and Dilip Kumar Khandelwal under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proceedings for eviction were drawn against the petitioners and eviction order was passed as far back as on 8-10-1987 by the Competent Authority. An appeal was preferred before the District Judge under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The appeal was dismissed on 8-10-1996. Thereafter, W.P. No. 1471/1997 was filed which was held to be not maintainable. Pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court, an application for conversion of writ petition into Civil Revision was filed which was allowed and this revision has been registered as C.R. No. 2407/2000 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and after formation of State of Chhattisgarh, this has been received on transfer from High Court of Madhya Pradesh.2. It is submitted that there are various persons against whose en...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT46(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Heard.2. Counsel for the petitioner has filed this petition on the ground that while directing handing over the vehicle on Supurdnama, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund, has directed to furnish security of Rs. 4 lakhs and bank guarantee of 1 lakh.3. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the conditions imposed for return of vehicle are too stringent and onerous. It is further submitted that the direction to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs. 1 lakh is not at all justified. So far as handing over the vehicle on Supurdnama is concerned, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Baligera Bheemudu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1993(4) Crimes 1074, wherein it has been observed that:--'If the vehicle is liable for confiscation, the condition can be imposed to furnish some security as in the event of conviction and order of confiscation, and in the event of the vehicle being alienated or transferred,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›