Chhattisgarh Court January 2009 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.
Savita Manoj Kumar (Smt.) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT69(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J. 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard at the admission stage itself.2. By this petition the petitioner has impugned the order dated 21-10-2008 of Annexure P-l whereby respondent No. 2-Director, Panchayat has allowed the revision petition of respondent No. 6 preferred against the order dated 4-10-2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh.3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that applications for appointment on the post of Aanganbadi Worker were invited by the Development Project Officer, Gram Panchayat Garhumaria, District Raigarh and the petitioner, respondent No. 6 and others submitted their applications. After scrutiny of applications, Gram Panchayat vide Annexure P-4 recommended name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Aanganbadi Worker, however, respondent No. 4-Chief Executive Officer appointed respondent No. 6 as Aanganbadi Worker for Gram Panchayat Garhumaria. The Additional Collector, Ra...
Haresh and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-29-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1383; 2009(3)MPHT13(CG)
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 1-3-2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No. 396/2003, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed charge for offence punishable under Sections 304-B & 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC against the applicants.2. The order is challenged on the ground that without any prima facie material for offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC, the Court below has framed the charge and thereby committed illegality.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the copy of the order impugned as also the copy of the charge-sheet.4. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that Mrs. Neetu alias Neelam (since deceased) was married to applicant No. 1 Haresh on 9-6-2003 at Dhamtari and she died by jumping into a dam on 14-9-2003 within three months of her marriage in abnormal circumstances. Applicants Nos. 2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the dece...
Dhaniram Gotani Kenwat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-27-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1799
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Appellant Dhaniram stands convicted Under Section 302, IPC for commission of murder of deceased Nanku Patel and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 120/96 on 30th September, 1996.2. Appellant Dhaniram used to quarrel with his wife, Tijiya Bai, on account of her alleged illicit relations with deceased Nanku Patel. The allegations are that on 27-12-1995, when the deceased had gone for defecation in the fields, the appellant also went towards the fields, with a Tabbal in his hands, and murdered the deceased by causing multiple incised wounds. After commission of murder, he kept the Tabbal in the paddy-straw behind his house and went to the police station and lodged the First Information Report (Ex-P/13). The further case of the prosecution is that while the appellant was going to the police station, he met with his son Saniram (PW-5) and made extra judicial confession to him.3. After rece...
Wilson David Alias Billoo and Etc. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-21-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1402
T.P. Sharma, J.1. Since all the aforesaid criminal appeals arise out of the same judgment passed in Sessions Trial No. 172/2003 convicting the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 500 in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 450, I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 500 in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20-7-2002 when the prosecutrix namely Sonsir Bai (PW-9) was sleeping in her house, the present appellants along with other accused Chhotu Jabalpuriha entered her house armed with sickle, knife and pistol. They tied a piece of cloth in her mouth switched off the light and three of them committ...
Virendra Kumar Alias Bholoo Gupta and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT110(CG)
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. On being mentioned by the learned Counsel for the applicants, matter is taken up today for hearing.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 28-11-2008 passed by Twelfth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg affirming the order dated 24-9-2008 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Durg in Criminal Case No. 248/2008, whereby the Court below has rejected the bail application filed on behalf of the Juvenile applicants.3. The order is challenged on the ground that the Court below has not considered the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned.5. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants Virendra Kumar @ Bholoo Gupta and Vikas Kumar @ Sonoo Gupta are juvenile as they are aged about 17 and 15 years respectively. They were present in their own shop at the time of alleged incident and have not caused any injury to the complainant.6. They are in...
Krishna Lal Sahu and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT109(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notification/notice dated 10-8-2007 (Annexure P-6), 7-12-2007 (Annexure P-8), 8-2-2008 (Annexure P-11) and 14-3-2008 (Annexure P-12) and further a writ of mandamus to the respondents restraining the respondents from acquiring the agricultural land in question.2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners are the owner of the disputed land situated at Village Bagaud and Village Banjari, District Dhamtari. Admittedly, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894') was issued on 30th July, 2007 and published in the Official Gazette on 17th August, 2007, (Annexure R-1). Thereafter, a notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was published in the Official Gazette on 7-3-2008 (Annexure R-2). The award consequent thereupon was passed on 17-4-2008 (Annexure R-3). The petitioners d...
Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Rajesh Yadav and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT40(CG)
ORDERRajeev Gupta, C.J.1. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 7-2-2004, passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, in Motor Claim Case No. 64/2003.2. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Vimal Kumar claimed compensation of Rs. 34,10,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 4-7-2003. The claimants pleaded that deceased Vimal Kumar was working as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force and was getting salary ofRs. 6,000/-per month.3. The owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle truck contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The insurer took further plea that the truck was being plied in breach of the policy conditions and the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving licence.4. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Vimal K...
Chait Ram and anr. Etc. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1866
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 25th of March, 2003 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C. G.) in Sessions Trial No. 358/2002, whereby, appellants Sobharam, Chait Ram and Jarha alias Madhav have been convicted under Sections 302 and 460, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in two counts with default sentence of R. I. for 1-1 month under each count and appellant Anand Ram has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 460/34, I.P.C. and ordered to undergo similar sentences as above under each count. It was also directed that all the sentence shall run concurrently.2. The brief facts are that in the intervening night of 2nd-3rd May, 2002, some persons entered into the house of Thakur Ram and murdered his wife Bisahin Bai. They caused grievous injuries to Thakur Ram. Thakur Ram became unconscious. He was taken to local hospital, from where, he was referred to M...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›