Chhattisgarh Court March 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.
Ramcharan Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2884
ORDERVijay Kumar Shrivastava, J.1. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5-10-90 was passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir, in Criminal Case No. 128/98 whereby applicant was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 304A of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-with default stipulation. The legality of conviction and sentence was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 111/90. Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Camp at Janjgir, vide judgment dated 23-12-95 sustained conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision.2. Factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that on 13-3-1988 when Suniram Yadav and Gangaram were going to BALCO on motorcycle bearing registration No. WBN 4317, on way the driver of truck bearing No. CPL 6684 driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle driven by Suniram Yadav and fled away from the spot. Gangaram received severe injuri...
Smt. Shanti Bai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-29-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR736]
S.K. Agnihotri, J.1. According to learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner namely Shri Brahaspati Panik, was working as Loader in the West Colliry, Kotma with the respondents No. 2 to 4, when he died on 14.8.1986 in harness.The petitioner, being dependant-legal heir of the deceased, made various Implications for appointment on compassionate. Her last application is dated 26.3.2002 (Annexure P/10). Vide letter dated 21.9.2005 (Annexure P/1) it was intimated to the petitioner that she is not entitled to get compassionate appointment.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to appointment on compassionate basis.3. The petitioner has filed this petition with unexplained and inordinate delay, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment. The husband of the petitioner died on 14.8.1986 and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 16.12.1998 (Annexure P/5).4. It is wel...
Sriram Mochi Alias Faikan Sai Vs. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT42
Dhirendra Mishra, J.1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 26th July, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 72/2000 by the Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Sections 363 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), sentenced him to undergo RI for three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and RI for life respectively with usual default clause.2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22-8-1999 appellant went to the house of complainant Rajaram, informed him that his sister and brother-in-law are sick and asked him to send his daughter Samarin Bai for their nursing. On this pretext, he took his 10 years old daughter Samarin Bai and instead of taking her to Rahadih (Rehat) aimlessly wandered wit...
Ramlal Kanwar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)MPHT92(CG)
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J.1. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused is in detention since May, 2001, thereby he is in detention for about 5 years 10 months, therefore, the appeal itself may be heard finally.2. Learned Counsel for the State also submitted that the appeal may be heard finally.3. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, appeal is heard finally.4. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5th June, 2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigarh in S.T. No. 130/2001 whereby learned Sessions Judge after holding the accused guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC, for committing murder of Salikram, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life & to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months.5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 2-3 days before 4-5-2001 Salikram (since deceased) assaulted Dhobiram, therefore, in that connection, a...
Brajesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-23-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2132
L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18-9-2001 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 495/96, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 324 of the I.P.C. sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months, respectively.2. Case of the prosecution is that on the fateful day at about 10 p.m. Jairam (PW-7) was sitting in his grocery shop, his father Gulab Chand (PW-8) and uncle Baijnath (since deceased) were also sitting at the shop, at that time, accused/appellant Brajesh along with his associates was pass-Ing through the street while abusing, therefore, Baijnath called them and asked Brajesh as to why he gave threatening to commit the murder of the friend of Raj Kuma...
Bholaram Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT25(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the resolution dated 16-5-2005 (Annexure P-2) whereunder it was resolved to appoint the respondent No. 5 as Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat Rewaghan, Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon and the order dated 25-6-2005 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dongargarh holding that the Sub Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain revision/appeal under provisions of Panchayat (appeal and Revision) Rules, 19952. The indisputable facts in nutshell are that the petitioner having obtained 49% marks in the 10th examination, made an application alongwith others for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi in Village Panchayat, Rewaghan. On the basis of marks, the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 and the name of the respondent No. 5 was placed at serial No. 3 as the respondent No. 5 has got 34% marks in the 10th examination certificate. The petitioner and one Pekhanlal obta...
Smt. Jineshwari Devi and ors. Vs. Smt. Durgeshwari @ Pila Bai Panigrah ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)MPHT85(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 21-9-2000 passed in Execution Case No. 157-A/2000 by learned First Civil Judge Class II, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar whereby the objection of the applicants with respect to maintainability of execution proceedings on the ground of limitation has been rejected and in execution of the decree dated 2-9-1987 passed in Second Civil Appeal No. 142/83 by the High Court of M.P., warrant of possession of the suit house and attachment warrant for recovery of decretal amount of Rs. 178.45/-has been issued against the applicant.2. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that undisputedly the decree was passed on 2-9-1987 and execution proceeding was initiated by decree holder only on 28-4-2000 which is beyond the period as prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act (henceforth 'the Act'). He further submits that the applicants' objection has been rejected with an observation that execution proceedings perta...
Rajesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT22(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to give appointment letter to the petitioner.2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was declared successful in the written examination held on 30-1-1994 and interview held on 14-6-1995 for appointment. Vide letter dated 22-7-1995 (Annexure P-3) the petitioner was informed that his name has been placed in the panel list for appointment on the post of Assistant. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was placed at serial Number 81 in the said panel list.3. After a lapse of about 9 years the petitioner has filed this petition for a direction to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant on the ground that the petitioner was denied appointment letter, despite the fact that he was declared as successful candidate.4. This petition is filed on several grounds, inter alia, that non-issue of the app...
Bihari Lal Thawait Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT25(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition for a direction to the respondents to offer employment to the petitioner according to his qualification and ability, to provide possible medical treatment to the petitioner at State expense and further to pay compensation to the petitioner.2. Case of the petitioner is that he was suffering from Polio and both his lower limbs were affected and he was able to move with the support of his hands. However, in the year 1988 under the order of District Collector, the petitioner underwent operation in a private hospital of Dr. Ladikar free of cost but the operation was unsuccessful and his condition worsened. The District Medical Board vide certificate of Annexure P-2 certified the extent of disability at 75%. The petitioner submitted application of Annexure P-3 to the District Collector, Bilaspur for providing employment whereupon the District Collector promised him all assistance for his rehabilitation and passed an order on ...
State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Vs. Vijay Kumar
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-22-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3252
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. On a leave being granted under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State has filed this app-peal against the Judgment of acquittal dated 8th of June, 1989 passed in Special Case No. 7/87 by the Special Judge, Rajnandgaon (M. P.).2. The case of the prosecution is that in the year 1986, the respondent was posted as Food Inspector, Dongargarh, and was a public servant for the purposes of Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the Act'). The complainant namely Bhuwanlal (PW-1) was a milk vendor. On 20-6-1986, he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police (Special Police Establishment), Raipur, alleging that the respondent had called him 2-3 times in his house at Pongargarh and he demanded Rs. 300/- from him making a threat that if the amounts is not paid to him, he would collect the sample of milk. On the said report, a trap was organized and the trap party, consisting of Inspector-G. P. Tripathi (PW-9). Nai...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »