Chhattisgarh Court January 2006 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.
Anil Kumar Saxena and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-23-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC254
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. The five accused persons (hereinafter called as the petitioners) of Criminal Case No. 233/2004, State of C.G. v. Anil Kumar Saxena and 4 Ors., pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) have prayed for quashment of the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case for want of territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, a short question involves for consideration as to whether the Court at Kawardha would have jurisdiction to try this case or not?2. The brief facts, according to the charge-sheet, are that' the complainant/ respondent No. 2 was married to the petitioner No. 1 on 21.6.2002. The marriage was solemnized in Kawardha. The First Information Report would show that after the marriage, the respondent No. 2 want to live with her husband and other family members in Bilaspur and they were jointly residing in Mohalla Yadunandan Nagar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G).3. The case of the prosecution, according to the cha...
Govind Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2177
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3-5-2003 delivered by Shri Raghubir Singh, Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Ambikapur, Surguja in special criminal case No. 16/2002 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was sentenced to R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo additional R.I. for three years.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 19-3-2002 Sub-Inspector Haricharan Singh P.W.8 of Police Station Ambikapur received secret information that one person was in unauthorized possession of brown-sugar. After complying with the legal formalities, along with witnesses Shahid Khan P.W.5 and Anwar Qureshi P.W. 1, he reached the spot near the school situated at Gram Asola. After giving notice under Section 50 of the Act, the appellant was searched. From his full pant, brown-sugar like substance was seized in tw...
Veena Mahila Samuh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT37(CG)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, C.J.1. This writ petition is misconceived and premature. The 2nd respondent who is the Competent Authority to grant authorisation for fresh fair price shops, by his order dated 19-9-2005, granted authorisation in favour of the petitioner-Society. It is alleged that at the behest of the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent reported to the 2nd respondent that the petitioner-Society was indulging in certain malpractices and violated regulations. On that basis, the 2nd respondent-Competent Authority has issued show-cause notice dated 2-1-2006 calling upon the petitioner- Society to submit its reply, if any, on the alleged irregularities and malpractices. The petitioner-Society has already submitted its reply to the show-cause notice. The petitioner without waiting for the order that may be made by the 2nd respondent after consideration of its reply has rushed to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari to quash the proceed...
Shatruhan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1496
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-10-2001 delivered by Shri Dilip Bhatt, Special Judge, (Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act) Bilaspur in special criminal case No. 76/2001 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376(1) of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.2. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. The prosecutrix Ku. Arti, a minor girl aged about 13 years is the daughter of Ramaiya P.W. 2 and Fotobai P.W. 3. On 21-12-2000 at about 3.00 p.m. the prosecutrix with her playmates Nawadha, Shrawan Kumari and her sister Kalpana had gone to eat berries. After eating berries, they went towards the pond. The prosecutrix called her playmates but, they got separated. Thereafter, the prosecutrix washed herself and came to the bund of the field for returning ...
Randhir and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPHT24(CG)
L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. By this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.PC accused/appellants namely Randhir, Devdas, Roop Singh and Rajesh have questioned the legality of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28-8-99 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 416/94 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding each of the accused/appellants guilty for commission of offence under Sections 396 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year each, and to undergo R.I. for 3 years respectively. It was further directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The accused/appellants are in detention since 1-7-94 thereby they are in detention round about more than 11 years 6 months.2. The case of the prosecution, as per the Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-19) lodged by Kishorilal P.W. 22 in th...
Bhupendra Das Vaishnava and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4346
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. This is an application filed Under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, who apprehended their arrest in connection with Crime No. 389/2005 registered at Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable Under Sections 452, 294, 323, 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short Special Act).2. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the State, referring to the memo dated 6.12.2005, written by Superintendent of Police, District Kabirdham to the Deputy Superintendent of Police A.J.K. Kawardha, submitted that on the direction of the Superintendent of Police, which was made on the basis of an application given by the father of the compLainant, the offence under the Special Act has been withdrawn by the prosecution and now, the case is registered only under the aforementioned sections of the I.P.C. and there is ...
Satish Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1467
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18-9-2002 delivered by Shri N.D. Ekka, 4th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Janjgir in Special Case No. 508/2001 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376(1) and Section 506, Part II of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for three months under Section 376(1) and to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 506, Part II of the I.P.C.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that Prosecutrix P.W. 15, aged about 13 years, is the daughter of Ambika P.W. 2 and Ramkishun P.W. 5. On 26-10-2001, she along with Ku. Pushpa P.W. 18 and Ku. Meena D.W. 1 had gone to witness Dussehara festival in which the effigy of Ravana was burnt in the outskirts of the village Tanaud. At about 7.00 p. m. after festival was over the prosecutrix P.W. 15 was returning home alone. Near the vil...
Shayam Lal Saraf Vs. State of C.G. and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-13-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1499; 2006(2)MPHT36(CG)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, C.J.1. The petitioner is the father of a person, Nagesh Saraf by name. That Nagesh Saraf had licence of a gun 22 Bore No. 42281 riffle. Nagesh Saraf died on 15-5-1997. Even before his death, in certain criminal proceedings, the gun was surrendered to the District Magistrate Licensing Authority. After the date of death of Nagesh Saraf, the gun has been in the custody of the District Magistrate.2. After the demise of Nagesh Saraf, the petitioner made an application on 15-5-1997 to the District Magistrate and Collector, Bilaspur requesting the latter that licence earlier granted to his son be transferred in his name and the gun should be returned to him. The District Magistrate and Collector, Bilaspur did not accede to the above request of the petitioner. In the circumstance, this writ petition is filed seeking intervention of this Court.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any semblance of legal right in the petitioner to seek mandamus to th...
Santosh Kumar and Etc. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-13-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1185
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This judgment shall govern Cr. Appeal No. 967/2004 preferred by Santosh Kumar and Cr. Appeal No. 954/ 2004 preferred by Gabbar Patel, Lakhan Lal and Hiralal arising out of judgment dated 13-10-2004 delivered by 3rd Addl. Sessions (Fast Track Court) in Sessions Trial No. 231 / 2004 whereby the appellants in the above-mentioned both the appeals were convicted under Sections 399, 402, of the I.P.C. and under Sections 25B(a) and 25(1B)(b) of Arms Act and were sentenced to R.I. for seven years and fine amount of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month each under Section 399 I.P.C., R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-in default to undergo further R.I. for one month each under Section 402 of the I.P.C., R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of which, to undergo additional R.I. for one month each under Section 25(B)(a) and R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of the same, to undergo further R....
Municipal Corporation Vs. Mohammed Farookh and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR658]; 2006(2)MPHT1(CG)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, C.J.1. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur was the employer of first respondent. The first respondent was removed from service w.e.f. 10-1-2000 on the ground that there was no need for his services. Being aggrieved by the above action of the petitioner-Municipal Corporation, the first respondent initiated conciliation proceedings ultimately resulting in the failure report. In the circumstance, the State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Bilaspur for adjudication.2. The Labour Court, Bilaspur having conducted the enquiry and recording a finding that the removal of the first respondent from service tantamounted to retrenchment and the action of the petitioner - Municipal Corporation was in utter violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') answered the reference in favour of the first respondent and directed reinstatement of the first respondent into service with continuity of services and full...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »