Chhattisgarh Court October 2007 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.
V.G. Tamaskar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Chh33
Jagdish Bhalla, Actg. C.J.1. Aggrieved by the result and effect of the order dated 20-4-2007 passed in Writ Appeal No. 48/2007, the petitioner who is a registered member of State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh having its number as CG330/1982/Advocate has filed this review petition.2. To regulate filing of the petition by the Sessions/Union and payment of Court fee, the Registrar General of this High Court on 3-4-2007 issued the following circular:CircularNo. 8466 Dated 3/4/2007As provided under Rule 126 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2005 with regard to procedure for filing specially having regard to computerization requirement following circular may be issued.Petitions filed by several persons having similar but separate and distinct interest in the subject-matter of controversy involving common questions of law and facts may file a common petition but each petitioner shall pay a separate court fee.If the petition is filed by/on behalf of a Society/Union then the following part...
Bharat Singh and anr. and Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT90
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. The 9th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur, has convicted and sentenced the appellants in Sessions Trial No. 402/2000 by judgment and order dated 28-12-2002. All the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. In addition to it, appellants Bharat, Shankar and T. Jagannath @ Jagga have also been convicted under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months, with further direction to run the sentences concurrently. The appellants were charged under Section 302/34, IPC, for committing murder of Harendrapal. They were also charged under Section 307, IPC for attempting life of Balkishan (P.W. 16). Shankar and T. Jagannath @ Jagga were also charged under Section 323, IPC for causing simple injuries to Tara Devi (P.W. 15).2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28-8-2000 at about 10.30 p.m. Tara Bai (P.W. 15) gave Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P-19) in Mission Hospital, Tilda to ASI, Ram Kumar V...
Sonuram Kanwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT102(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate for the Applicant.Shri Sandeep Yadav, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State.2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 16th May, 1995 passed in Cr.A. No. 55/87 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari has rejected the appeal preferred by the applicant and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3-1-87 passed in Criminal Case No. 232/83 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for one month.3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that both the Courts below have ignored the fact that there is absolute non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act as there is no evidence available on record to s...
Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ244
Dhirendra Mishra, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24th April, 2004 passed in S.T. No. 68/04 whereby learned 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur has convicted the appellant under Sections 376, 506 -11 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R1 for seven years, pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and to undergo RI for two years, pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, respectively and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional RI for one year and six months, respectively. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13-12-2003 the appellant, who is resident of village Morwa, Distt. Raipur, the village of maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, went to village Dadicoat where prosecutrix resides with her parents, by his motorcycle. He visited house of the prosecutrix, sat there for a while and thereafter, came out. The parents of the prosecutrix also came out with t...
Santosh Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1091; I(2008)DMC30; 2007(4)MPHT105(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 5-9-2007 (Annexure P-l) passed in Sessions Trial No. 15/07 whereby learned Sessions Judge has framed the charge under Section 304B and in the alternative under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') against the petitioners herein for the death of Smt. Sandhya Singh, wife of petitioner No. 1-Santosh Kumar Singh.12. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Smt. Sandhya Singh wife of Sanjay Singh and daughter of Baijnath Chand, i.e., the complainant, died on 5-9-2006, i.e., within 7 years of her marriage with the petitioner No. 1, which was solemnized on 20-4-2001 and according to the post-mortem report cause of death was hanging by rope around the neck leading to asphyxia. On the basis written report of Baijnath Chand, father of the deceased, offence under Sections 304B and 306/34 of the IPC was registered and accordingly, charge-sheet was filed and the Trial Court has framed the char...
Meva Devi and ors. Etc. Vs. Omprakash Jagannath Agrawal and ors. Etc.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Chh13
Dhirendra Mishra, J.1. First Appeal No. 52/2006 preferred by the original defendants No. 2, 3 and legal representatives of defendant No. 4 and First Appeal No. 55/2006 preferred by the defendant No. 1 are being disposed of by this common judgment as both the appeals are arising out of the judgment and decree dated 25th February, 2006 passed in F. A. No. 50A/84 whereby learned First Additional District Judge, Raigarh has decreed the suit filed by the Original Plaintiff Jagannath Agrawal for recovery of possession of the suit house and decree of declaration of the title of the plaintiff over the agricultural lands described in Schedule 5 of the plaint.2. Plaintiff Jagannath Agrawal and defendant No. 4 Govind Ram died during pendency of the suit whereas defendant No. 1 died during pendency of the appeal.(Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their description before the trial Court.)3. Relationship between the parties in the suit is not in dispute. Plaintiff Jagannath, defendant...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Hiraundi Devi Ma ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-01-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ493; 2007(4)MPHT49(CG)
ORDERD.R. Deshmukh, J.1. In this writ petition, the order dated 1-8-2006 passed by 8th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as the MACT) in Claims Case No. 53 of 2006 whereby the objection relating to maintainability of the application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was turned down, is under challenge.2. Brief undisputed facts are that on 29-11-2005 Balram Mahilange, owner of the Hero Honda Super Splendor motor cycle met with an accidental death while driving the said motor cycle, which was insured under a policy of insurance issued by the petitioner where under besides covering third party risk, personal accident risk cover of the owner/driver to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- was also provided.3. The widow and three minor children of the deceased filed an application under Section 163A of the Act. In the said application, it was not mentioned as to how the accident occurred. Compensation of R...
ChedIn Bai Bareth Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-01-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2668
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Challenge is made to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9th March, 2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in S. T. No. 31/2001, whereby, the said Court, after holding the accused/appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The brief facts are that the deceased namely Nashiruddin was husband of the accused Chedin Bai. They were residing in a rented premises of Nanki Bai (PW-4). The deceased Nashiruddin had married with the appellant Chedin Bai in Chudi form one year prior to the date of incident. The allegation are that on account of certain dispute, on 25-11-2000, accused Chedin Bai poured kerosene oil over the body of the deceased and set him on fire. The deceased received burn injury to the extent of 85%. He was admitted to Dharam Hospital, Bilaspur on 26-11-2000. An intimation to this effect was given to the police station, based on which, the First Information...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›