Chhattisgarh Court March 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.
Kishore Bahadur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-30-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2556
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31-10-2002 delivered by Shri Lakhan Singh, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Distt. Korba in Sessions Trial No. 478/2001 whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 376, 366, 363 and 342, I.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 376, I.P.C. to R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 366, I.P.C. to R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 363 and to R.I. for 3 months under Section 342, I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month each for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376, I.P.C.2. The prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years and 2 months and a student of Class IX, left for her school on a cycle at about 10.15 a.m. from her house. Near Polytechnic College, by the side of the road, the appellant-Kishore Bahadur along with Ram Bh...
Kirtiwas and Etc. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-25-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2829
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. In Sessions case No. 458/2000 Shri C. B. Bajipai, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar place Jagdalpur vide judgment dated 13-10-2001 convicted the appellants Vijay and Bhuvneshwar under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(g) and 342, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months under Section 366, I.P.C., to undergo R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months under Section 376(2)(g), I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 342, I.P.C. and further convicted appellant-Kirtiwas under Sections 363 and 366, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years and a line of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months under Section 366, I.P.C.2. Being aggrieved by the above mentioned judgment, the appellants-Vijay and Bhuvneshwar have preferred Criminal Appeal...
Balvinder Singh Rajput Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Chh65
S.R. Nayak, C.J.1. The petitioner is a litigant in a dispute which has arisen under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). Sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Act mandates that no party shall be represented at the hearing of a dispute by any legal practitioner, except with the permission of the Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees, as the case may be. Since, it is not permissible for a party to be represented by a legal practitioner in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Act without the prior permission of the Registrar, it appears that the petitioner herein made an application to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur, who is in terms of the definition of the term 'Registrar' is the Registrar, seeking permission to be represented by a counsel. That request of the petitioner was turned-down by the Deputy Registrar by order dated 5-12-2005. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred a revisi...
Vainkat Rao Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2326
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8-7-2003 delivered by Smt. Maitrayee Mathur, Special Judge, Rajnandgaon in Special Case No. 41/2003 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1985) and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that Assistant Sub-Inspector P. L. Markam PW-8 of City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon received secret information that the appellant had brought illicit ganja at the bus stand, Rajnandgaon. After recording the said information and complying with the necessary legal formalities Shri P.L. Markam PW-8 proceeded to the bus stand, Rajnandgaon along with rickshaw pullers Gariba PW-2, Mangru PW-3 and Constable Rajmal Singh PW-4. The appellant was seen c...
Surendra Pal Singh Parihar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Chh100
ORDERS.K. Sinha, J.1. A short question involves for consideration in this petition as to whether an advocate enrolled in a different State can appear and conduct a case in the State of Chhattisgarh or not?2. The brief facts, as stated in the petition are that this petitioner is enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. His enrolment Number is U. P. 73/ 1448. Two of the accused persons in Sessions Trial No. 329/2005 (State through C.B.I. v. Amit Jogi and 30 Ors.) pending in the Court of 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur, engaged the petitioner to defend their case. The recording of the evidence in the trial commenced on 13-12-2005. On 13-12-2005, the petitioner appeared in the said Court and filed his memo of appearance. The said memo was also signed by Shri J. S. Rathore, Advocate, Gwalior and Shri R. K. Tiwari, a local advocate practicing at Raipur. The petitioner then conducted the trial till 29-12-2005 and no objection was raised regarding his appearance in the s...
Avinash Singh and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4152
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the two accused persons of S.T. No. 334/2003 State v. Vinod Singh @ Badal and 4 Ors. have called in question the legality of the order dated 17.11.2005 passed in S.T. No. 329/2005 State through C.B.I. v. Amit Jogi and 30 Ors. whereby the two Sessions Trials having diametrically opposite versions have been directed to be consolidated by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.).2. The brief facts are that one Ram Avtar Jaggi, a leader of National Congress party was shot at 11.40 p.m. on 4.6.2003 and in this connection, a First Information Report was lodged in P.S. Moudhapara Raipur vide F.I.R. No. 104/2003 for the offences under Sections 447 and 307, I.P.C. This F.I.R. was lodged at the instance of V.K. Pandey, the Station House Officer, P.S. Moudhapara Raipur. Ram Avtar Jaggi was then sent to Macahara Hospital, Raipur, where he died. On 5.6.2003, at 2.15 a.m. another report vide F.I.R. No. 105/2003...
Natwar Dewangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2046
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-1-2006, delivered by Shri R. P. Sharma, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, in Session Case No. 140 of 2005, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for one month.2. Briefly stated prosecution story is that on 23-10-2004, the prosecutrix, a married lady went behind the Badi of her house at about 9-30 p.m. for attending call of nature. The appellant came there, pushed her on the ground, lifted her clothes and mounting upon her committed rape. The prosecutrix shouted. Kejau (P.W. 2) and Amrit Bai (P.W. 5) reached the spot and saw the appellant and the prosecutrix in a compromising situation. Kejau (P.W. 2) slapped the appellant. A Baithka was organized on the next day. Since the matter could not be solved in the Baithka,...
Tiharu and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2358
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-5-2002, delivered by Shri Yogesh Mathur, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Bilaspur in Session Case No. 356 of 2001, where by the appellants were convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R. I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. l,000/-, each and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R. I. for one year.2. Briefly stated prosecution story as revealed by the typed First Information Report-Ex. P/14 lodged by the prosecutrix on 18-7-2001 is that on the same day at about 8.00 a.m. while her husband was away from home and she was cleaning the courtyard of her house, the appellants herein along with co-accused Dasharam and Prem Das came there, started quarrelling and assaulted her. Both the appellants herein pushed the prosecutrix on the ground and dragged her inside the house. Appellant-Jugudas caught hold of the hands of the pro...
Kartik Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2293
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13-2-2004 delivered in Special Case No. 46/2003 by Shri R. S. Sharma, learned Sessions Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Bastar, Headquarter at Jagdalpur whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and was sentenced to R.I. for 4 years and a fine of Rs. 15.000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 1 year.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 17-10-2003 Sub-Inspector Arvind Dwivedi, Station House Officer of Police Station-Pharasgaon upon receiving secret information about the possession of illicit ganja by a person, reached Badedongar Triangle along with staff and witnesses and apprehended the appellant who was carrying a red and blue coloured regzine bag. After serving the appellant with a notice under Section 50 of the Act and also after obtaining the consent o...
Surendra Kumar Thakur Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)3LLJ431CG
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of removal from service dated December 16, 2002 (Annexure P-26).2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant (Cash and Accounts) in the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'SBI'), vide order dated October 9, 1995 and he was posted at Sukma, District-Dantewada. The respondents /Bank received a complaint from one Smt. Rukmini Bai (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been withdrawn from her Account No. 01190010093 01190010093 of Kirandul Branch of SBI. In the complaint, it was stated that, in the meantime, she was threatened by the cashier that she would go to jail if she refused to sign on the withdrawal slip. It was further stated that one bank security guard came with one blank slip for obtaining her signature, which she declined to do.3. On the basis of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »