Chhattisgarh Court May 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.
Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT18(CG)
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Heard.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2-4-2003 passed in S.T. No. 128/2002 by the Court of Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (CG). The said Court held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 363,366 and 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 3 years under Section 366, IPC and RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months under Section 376, IPC, however, no separate punishment was awarded under Section 363, IPC.3. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix namely- Ku. Lata Sahu (P.W. 3), aged about 15 years, was residing with her parents in Village Borai. She was student of class 7th. The appellant was a truck driver, who used to come to her village. She came in contact with the appellant and on 15-12-2001, in the midnight; she took departure from the guardianship of her parents, accompanied the appel...
Dhanesh Alias Konda Banjare Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-24-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3328
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11-2-2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 443/2000 by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, whereby, the said Court after holding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f), I. P. C, sentenced him to undergo R. I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R. I. for 2 months.2. The brief facts are that on 19-10-2000 at about 19.30 hours, the prosecutrix Ku. Jayalata (P. W. 4), a minor girl aged about 6 years, was playing near her house. The appellant came there, caught her by hands, took her inside a room and committed forceful sexual intercourse against her. When she was released, she went to her house and narrated the story to her mother-Smt. Resham Bai (P. W. 1), who noticed the blood stains on her underwear. She called her husband, the appellant was also called and blood like stains on his...
Deepak Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT14(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioner, by this petition, challenges the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 12-1-2007 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. R.N. 11/R/A-76/180/2006, whereby notices dated 24-1-2006 and 28-1-2006, issued by the Additional Tehsildar/Tehsildar, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Division Bilaspur and Raigarh respectively, for recovery of money under Section 146 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code, 1959') was held to be in accordance with law.2. The facts with regard to the claim of the petitioner against the respondent-Authorities are not the subject-matter in this petition. It appears that the petitioner was granted contract for the work of construction of 100 beds Hostel for Krida Parisar including water supply, sanitary fitting and electrification at Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur, and for the work of construction of 100 beds sports complex at Manendragrah, District ...
Vishnu Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT11(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Heard.2. This a revision directed against the order dated 15-3-2007, passed by the Special Judge, Janjgir in Special Criminal Case No. 05/2007, whereby, the said Court dismissed the application filed under Section 167(2),Cr.PC for grant of compulsive bail to the applicant.3. The brief facts are that this applicant was arrested on 12-1-2007. He was sent to judicial custody on 13-1 -2007 and the charge-sheet could not be filed by the prosecution upto 14-3-2007, therefore, on 15-3-2007, an application for releasing on compulsive bail under Section 167(2),Cr.PC was filed by the applicant as the applicant was ready and willing to furnish the bail bond for his release. It is stated that on the same day, after filing of the application, subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution.4. The learned Special Judge dismissed the application of the applicant, saying that since the charge-sheet has subsequently been filed by the State on the same day, though ...
Pavitra Uraon and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-09-2007
Reported in: I(2008)DMC439; 2007(3)MPHT8(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Heard.2. This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 23/2007, registered at Police Station, Rajpur, District Surguja (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.3. The brief facts are that the complainant namely Asrita Beg was married to applicant No. 3 - Anil Khalkho on 13-5-2005. She resided with her husband for a reasonably long period, during which, she carried pregnancy. However, on certain dispute, she left the company of the husband and in-laws and lodged a written report dated 24-1-2007 making allegations regarding ill-treatment by the husband and in-laws on account of demand of dowry. She also stated that even these persons made allegations that the pregnancy carried by her was not from applicant No. 3 (husband) and for all these reasons, she had to live separa...
Beesaaha Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-08-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ321; 2007(3)MPHT61
ORDERD.R. Deshmukh, J.1. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the application for compensation vide award dated 14-8-1997 passed in Claim Case No. 12/94 by the IInd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (henceforth 'the MACT'), the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal.2. Following facts are not disputed. Appellant/claimant was the owner of Tractor-trolley No. MP-26/E-0390 on 28-3-1993 covered under a policy of insurance by the respondent for agricultural purposes. On 28-3-1993, at about 9 P.M., the appellant/claimant was returning with 5 labourers from a quarry after filling stones in the Trolley. While on a down-gradient, the Tractor had turned turtle. One of the labourers, i.e., Mohan had lodged a report on the same day at P.S. Ratanpur that while the appellant/claimant was driving the Tractor-trolley in a rash and negligent manner on a down-gradient, it went out of control and turned turtle. A criminal prosecution for causing injury due to rash or negligent dri...
Gyan Chandra Agrawal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2851; 2007(3)MPHT54
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. 'Whether a person, who has been granted an order of compulsive bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate and who did not furnish bail bond for a long time pursuant to the order and a charge-sheet was filed, in the meanwhile, can be subsequently released on such bail on his furnishing bail-bond on the strength of the earlier order ?, is a short question raised for consideration in this petition.2. The brief facts are that this petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 76 of 2004 registered at Police Station, Bhilaibhatti for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the IPC. Firstly, he moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail in the said crime which was dismissed by the High Court on 18th August, 2004 and the matter was directed to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI'). Consequently, the matter was transferred to the CBI, where it was registered as Crime ...
Mahavir Prasad Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT18(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Heard.This petition under Section 482, Cr.PC has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the order dated 10-4-2006 passed by respondent No. 2, Conservator of Forest (Appellate Authority), by which the said Authority while allowing the appeal of the applicant for releasing the seized vehicle (Truck) on Supurdnama directed that the said vehicle of the applicant shall be given on Supurdnama to him after producing a bank guarantee equivalent to price of the vehicle (Truck).2. It appears that the Truck of the applicant bearing Registration No. C.G. 12-C/0285 was seized by the Forest Department in connection with Forest Crime No. 774/19, dated 17-5-2005 and a proceeding of confiscation is pending before the Competent Authority. During the pendency of confiscation proceeding, the applicant moved an application for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama to the Competent Authority, on which, the order dated 10-3-2005 was passed by him and prayer was negatived ...
Smt. Jaswant Kaur Vs. Smt. Gurudeep Kaur and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-01-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4726
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Heard on admission.2. This revision is directed against the order dated 29-9-2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg in criminal revision No. 278/2005. The said revision was filed against the order dated 1-8-2005 passed in criminal case No. 196-2003 by the ACJM Bemetara.3. The brief facts are that a criminal complaint under Section 498A, IPC was filed by the complaint in the Court of ACJM, Bemetara. The ACJM took cognizance in the matter and registered the offence and issued notices to the respondents. After appearance, the respondents took an objection that according to the contents of the complaint itself, no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Bemetara Court and entire cause of action as disclosed in the complaint has arisen In territorial jurisdiction of Mahasamund Court, District Mahasamund, therefore, the Court at Bemetara will have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.4. The aforesaid objec...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›