Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2009CriLJ576
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 24-9-2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur, in Criminal Case No. 111/ 2005 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class after holding that the cart of cause of action arose at Phakhajur rejected the application filed on behalf of the appellants under Sections 177, 178 and 245 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Code').2. The order is challenged on the ground that no part of cause of action arose of Phakhajur and therefore, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur was not competent to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioners.3. I have heard Shri Y. C. Sharma, counsel for the petitioners and Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, panel lawyer for the State and perused the petition as also the order impugned.4. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that respondent No. 2-Sushmita Biswas was married to the deceased Vijay Biswa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2009ACJ2630
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. The appellant insurer is aggrieved by the award dated 26.6.2006 passed by Eleventh Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur in Claim Case No. 93 of 2006 whereby in an injury case compensation of Rs. 14,000 has been awarded to the claimants against the insurer.2. Brief facts are that on 19.2.2005 at 6.30 p.m. respondent No. 1 was travelling as a pillion rider on motor cycle No. CG 04-CJ 8793 (henceforth 'the motor cycle') driven by one Santuram Jangde, owned by respondent No. 2, Santosh Kumar and insured by the appellant. Santuram Jangde died in the accident. Hiraudas Manikpuri, respondent No. 1, sustained injuries. No premium was paid by respondent No. 2 for covering the risk of pillion rider. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 14,000 against the appellant insurer.3. The sole ground urged by Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, learned Counsel for appellant insurer is that the claimant (respondent No. 1) was a pillion rider on the motor cycle ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2009CriLJ133
T.P. Sharma, J.1. Cr.A. No. 967/2003 filed by Devsharan and Cr.A. No. 975/2003 filed by Taran Singh Marabi have been preferred against the same judgment dated 7-8-2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 156/2003, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common-judgment.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7-8-2003 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Sessions Trial No. 156/2003, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellants along with two other co-accused persons guilty for kidnapping, abducting and committing gang rape on the prosecutrix, convicted each of them under Sections 363 read with Section 34, 366 read with Sections 34 & 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C.. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years & pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sections 363 read with Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4467
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th of December, 2002 passed in Special Case No. 155/2001 by the Special Judge under S. C. & S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur, whereby appellant Panchu Yadav has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Special Act) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in two counts respectively and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in the first count, in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for two months and the appellant Ram Bharose has been convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default thereof, to further undergo S.I. for two months.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18-8-2001, Dilip Kumar, since deceased, was grazing his cattle in Gadahiyad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2009CriLJ120
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2002 passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 64/2001, whereby, the appellant has been convicted Under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for six months.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10-12-2000 at about 7.30 p.m., deceased Banti alias Lokesh and his friend Shankar Bhaat (P.W.I) were sitting near Fowara Chowk. At that time, 3 accused persons namely Gabbar alias Dinesh (appellant herein), Jaiki alias Lokesh and Santosh came there and on account of some previous dispute, they started quarrelling and thereafter they assaulted the deceased with hands and fists. A report of the incident was lodged in Bhatapara Town Police station vide Ex.P.9. Banti alias Lokesh was taken to Jeevanmal Hospital, f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2009(3)MPHT94(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the legality and validity of the order dated 29-11-2007 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Tehsildar, Rajim, whereby stay of the construction on the disputed land bearing Khasra No. 42/1 area of 18.110 hectare within the boundary of temple admeasuring 246.5 x 115 = 28347.5 situated at Rajim, granted on 12-10-2007 was declined to be vacated.2. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed in exercise of power under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code, 1959'). The Tehsildar has no jurisdiction to pass such an order directing stay of the construction on the disputed property.3. Shri Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that since the order is without jurisdiction, the same is not appealable under the provisions of the Code, 1959. The impugned order was purportedly passed under the provisions of Section 248 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4779; 2008(5)MPHT37(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.PC'), as he apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 160/08 registered in Police Station, Dongargaon, District Dongargaon for commission of offence punishable under Sections 354, 294 and 323 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Act of 1989').2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Urmila Bai lodged report on 31-5-2008 at about 8.10 p.m. alleging that she was inside her house at about 5.30 p.m. on that day and labourer Subhash Mahar was chiseling stone outside her house, when the applicant abusing him in the name of his caste asked him as to who has asked him to work and when she came out, the applicant caught her arm with an intention to rob her honour and abused her by the name of her mother and caste. When her husband reached there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2009(4)MPHT10(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally.2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13-6-2008 passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in Appeal Case No. 387/ A-89/06-07 (Annexure P-1) whereby appeal was allowed setting aside the order dated 5-9-2007 passed by the Collector, Mahasamund, in Case No. 100/A-89 (3)/06-07 (Annexure P-4).3. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the respondent No. 4 was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chhatigirola, Tehsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund. The petitioner made a complaint and filed an application under Section 36 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act, 1993'), stating that the respondent No. 4 is having three children and the third child was born on 14-11-2001. Thus, the respondent No. 4 is disqualified to hold the office of Sarpanch under the prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2008(5)MPHT41(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner (Tritiya Verg Shaskiya Karmachari Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit) is a Society of Class III Government employees, registered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 23rd June, 2008, passed by the Chhattisgarh Information Commission (for short 'the Commission') in Appeal Case No. 175/2008 to the extent of observation of the Commission that the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act, 2005') are applicable to the petitioner-Society.2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent No. 3 sought for certain information from the petitioner-Society. The respondent No. 3 being aggrieved by non-supply of the documents by the Society preferred an appeal before the Commission. The Commission, although dismissed the appeal, however observed that the provisions of the Act, 2005 are applicable to the petitioner-So...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2008(4)MPHT75(CG)
ORDERRajeev Gupta, C.J.1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal) vide award dated 3-5-2000, passed in Claim Case No. 48/97.2. The claimants, unfortunate parents and younger brother of deceased Priyadarshi Patnayak claimed compensation of Rs. 20,10,000/- for his death in the motor accident on 22-12-1996, when the Jeep bearing registration No. M.K.I./0950 in which he was travelling met with an accident with a stationary Truck bearing registration No. B.E.M./7444, resulting in multiple serious injuries to Priyadarshi Patnayak who succumbed to those injuries on way to the hospital. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Priyadarshi Patnayak used to earn Rs. 7,300/- per month as Probationary Officer in Dena Bank.3. The owner and driver of the Jeep and the owner, driver and insurer of the Truck contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the c...
Tag this Judgment!