Chhattisgarh Court July 2004 Judgments
Bajrang Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT18(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. The revision is directed against the order dated 31-3-2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Korba in Sessions Trial No. 439/2000, whereby the application filed by the accused has been rejected for re-examination of certain witnesses under Section 311, Cr.PC.2. It is pointed out that earlier when the witnesses were examined, the articles and properties were not made available for identification. It is further pointed out that the re-examination of the witnesses is material and necessary. The said application was opposed. The Trial Court while rejecting the application noted that the prosecution evidence is complete and the matter is at the stage of defence evidence.3. Learned Counsel for the applicants contended that so far as examination/recall of the witnesses is concerned, Section 311, Cr.PC empowers the Court to summon a material witness or to examine a person present in the Court or to recall a witness already examined.4. Section 311, Cr.PC which wa...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Godawari Bai and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT5(CG)
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J.1. The accused/applicants, who are facing trial for the commission of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, in Criminal Case No. 1086/2003, have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, being aggrieved by the order dated 22-5-2004 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, in Criminal Revision No. 130/2004 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision of the applicants filed by them against the order dated 28-4-2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application of the accused/applicants filed under Section 437(6) of the Cr.PC for releasing them on bail during trial in the above criminal case on the ground that the trial of the above criminal case has not been concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence.2. Brief facts leading to filing of th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Dubey and anr. Vs. Anil Kumar Mashih and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ915
A.S.V. Moorthy, C.J. and L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. Mr. Yashwant Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellants. Mr. Srikumar Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. A. Gupta, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. Heard both the counsel.2. One Anil was going on a scooter in J.P. Square, Cross Avenue, Sector-6, Bhilai at 15.30 hours on 9.3.1994, when a truck bearing registration No. MP 24-C 1308 driven in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and dashed against the scooter, as a result of which said Anil was thrown away and died on the spot.3. The father and the mother by name Ramesh and Pushpa filed Claim Case No. 54 of 1994 on the file of Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg claiming compensation of Rs. 51,30,000. Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 50,000. Being aggrieved by the said award the present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants.4. The only question that arises for consideration is as to what is the jus...
Tag this Judgment!Timan Singh Raj Vs. Collector and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR22]; 2004(4)MPHT61(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Heard.2. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 10-8-2001 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner's services were terminated from the post of Shiksha Karmi.3. Briefly stated facts are that the petitioner was serving as Shiksha Karmi, Grade-Ill in Boys Primary School, Bamnidih. While in service he was prosecuted for the offences under Section 294,506B, 324, 323, 472 of Indian Penal Code. He was arrested by the police on 27-12-1998 and on 28-12-1998 at 2 p.m. he was produced before the Court and he was sent to jail. Then he was granted bail on 30-12-1998 and on the same day his bail was furnished and he was released. As such, it is submitted that he was said to be detained more than 48 hours. On such reports being received, respondent No. 2/the Janpad Panchayat passed the resolution No. 1, dated 26-2-1999 and thereafter terminated the service vide impugned order dated 10-8-2001 (Annexure P-l...
Tag this Judgment!Kedia Castle Delleon Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Eig ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT35(CG)
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality, propriety and validity of the order/circular dated 23-5-2001 issued by the Excise Commissioner of the State of Chhaittsgarh (respondent No. 2), whereby the petitioner was asked to affix holograms/stickers on the sealed bottles of country liquor supplied by him on the same terms and conditions and at the same cost fixed by the respondents, on the ground that the said order is bad in law being contrary to the tender/license conditions. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 1-8-2003 whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected.2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner is a public limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, under the certificate of incorporation. The petitioner Company is dealing and engaged in distilling/manufacturing liquor, spir...
Tag this Judgment!Banwari Lal Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR20]; 2004(4)MPHT53(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Applications for urgent hearing are allowed.2. Heard.3. The petitioner, who was Naib Tehsildar, was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Sections 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was placed under suspension on 30-9-93. He continued under suspension. It is stated that as per Annexure P-1 he was relieved. He was however acquitted by the Special Judge, Sarguja vide judgment dated 31-1-2000. It is submitted that after his acquittal, the suspension was not revoked. It is further submitted that notices on merits as well as M.W.P. were issued but neither the return nor the reply has been filed and the matter itself is pending since 2001.4. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that against the acquittal of the petitioner, State has preferred Misc. Criminal Case for leave to appeal before this Court, which is pending consideration. It is submitted that though Misc. Criminal Case was filed barred by limitation and ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Savita Devi and ors. Vs. Lakhbeer Yadav and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT63(CG)
ORDERA.S.V. Moorthy, C.J.1. The claimants in Claim Case No. 38/1997 on the file of 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur have preferred this appeal claiming the enhanced compensation.2. On 6-4-1995 one Chandrabhan, aged about 45 years was proceeding alongwith one Saddam from Kachheri Chowk to Panchpedi Naka by a Motor Cycle as a pillion rider. At that time a truck bearing Regn. No. GJ 10/T-8888 which was driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently came from the opposite direction and dashed against the two-wheeler. In the result, Chandrabhan died on the spot. The widow and two daughters of the deceased filed Claim Case No. 38/1997 before the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation to the extent of Rs. 7,50,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,24,200/-. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the claimants have filed the appeal.3. The fact that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving by the truck...
Tag this Judgment!Puran Vs. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT10(CG)
L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. The accused/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16th August, 1996, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, in Sessions Trial No. 160/1994, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of his own wife namely, Radhika Bai, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and further to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that in the intervening night of 1st & 2nd February, 1994, at about 11.30 p.m. the accused/appellant along with his father Mehtaroo and Rama Nai went to the house of Kumar, brother in law of the accused/appellant, knocked his door, when he came out of the house, accused/appellant Puran informed him that his wife Radhika Bai (since deceased...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Kumar Cherwa Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT56(CG)
L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. The accused/appellant stands convicted in Sessions Trial No. 43/2002 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Surajpur, District Surguja for the commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and further to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for three months.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 2-10-2001 at about 9 p.m. at Village Amandon, on account of the death of Dhansai, villagers were invited on post funeral ceremony to take their meal at the residence of Dhansai. Accused/appellant Shiv Kumar and deceased Shiv Ratan had also went to take dinner at the residence of Dhansai. On account of previous enmity, Shiv Ratan (since deceased) asked accused Shiv Kumar that as he has been ostracized, therefore, why he has come for taking dinner. On this some hot words were exchanged between the two and the accused left the scene. Shiv Ratan went ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›