Skip to content

Chhattisgarh Court July 2014 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.

Jul 10 2014

Soushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P. (Now C.G.)

Court: Chhattisgarh

Decided on: Jul-10-2014

1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 27.12.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 363/1995 convicting the accused/appellants under Sections 147, 452 and 302/34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo RI for three months, RI for one year and imprisonment for life on each count respectively. 2. In the present case name of the deceased is Santosh Kumar. It is alleged that the deceased was the employee of one Amolak Singh who was the contractor of a liquor shop situated at village Hardi Kala. It is alleged that one Narendra Singh (PW-18) was also working in the said liquor shop. Further case of the prosecution is that the accused persons used to make country made liquor in their village which was objected to by the deceased and Narendra Singh. As on the date of incident also the deceased had asked the accused persons not to indulge in such illegal activities, there was some hot talk between the deceased and acquitted accused Prahlad. It...


Jul 10 2014

Amol Singh and Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgar ...

Court: Chhattisgarh

Decided on: Jul-10-2014

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.1.1999 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in S.T.No.489196 convicting the accused/appellants under Sections 302, 323 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and RI for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused/appellant No.1 Amol Singh is son of late Bhelan Singh and name of sister of Bhelan Singh is Chandanbai (PW-2). It is alleged that originally the land in question was in the name of Dhokhiyabai, mother of Bhenal Singh and Chandanbai, and after her death, about 15 acres land came in possession of Chandanbai (PW-2) and rest 20 acres land came in possession session of Bhelan Singh. After the death of Bhenal Singh, it is accused/appellant No.1 Amol Singh who was claiming his possession over the said land. It is alleged that on 9.11.1996 at about 8 a.m. when deceased Jagatram, his son Dhiren...


Jul 09 2014

The Mahamaya Minerals, Sakti and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ...

Court: Chhattisgarh

Decided on: Jul-09-2014

1. This order shall govern disposal of aforesaid writ petitions, as in all the writ petitions, common issue arises for consideration based on similar facts. 2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have been granted license / permit for storage of coal under the provisions of C.G. Minerals (Mining Transportation and Storage) Rule, 2009 (for short "the Rules of 2009"). Each of the petitioners, desirous of opening, establishing and running coal storage depot to facilitate transportation of coal after mining and removal from mining area, applied to the competent authority of the mining department for grant of license for coal storage. The application of each of the petitioners in aforesaid cases was considered and the Mining Officer in the office of the Collector granted license in prescribed Form 7, referable to Rule 6 (1) of the Rules of 2009. For ready reference, the details of the date of issuance of storage licenses and the period of such license in respect of each of the petit...


Jul 09 2014

Sonkali Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Court: Chhattisgarh

Decided on: Jul-09-2014

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-11-1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 260/98. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner.ConvictionSentenceUnder Section 306 of the Indian Penal CodeTo undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned, thereby committed illegality. 3. As per the case of prosecution, on 7-5-1998, at about 9.30 a.m., Siddhram Sahu from village Nirjam, Police Station Mungeli reached to Police Station and gave information that his aunt, (appellant) and brother Awardhram informed him that Narbadiya Bai committed suicide by setting herself ablaze in a room which was used by deceased Narbadiya Bai and her husband ...


Jul 07 2014

Roopan Korwa Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh

Court: Chhattisgarh

Decided on: Jul-07-2014

1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.), the applicant has filed instant criminal revision challenging the impugned judgment dated 14/07/2005 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, Surguja in Criminal Appeal No. 48/2004, by which, the conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) was maintained by the Appellate Court, but the, sentence has been reduced to the period undergone by the applicant and imposed fine sentence of Rs.5,000/-. 2. The facts, briefly stated are as under: 2.1 The prosecution/State filed a charge- sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338, IPC against the applicant alleging that on 25/09/1996, at about, 3.00 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of applicant. Tractor No. MP-27/B/0520 attached with Trolley turned turtle and the per...


Jul 04 2014

Roop Lal Halba Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Court: Chhattisgarh

Decided on: Jul-04-2014

1. Invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) sole accused! applicant Roop Lal Halba has preferred this revision questioning the impugned judgment whereby his conviction for offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth IPC) stands affirmed by appellate court as awarded by trial Magistrate. 2. The core facts leading to the prosecution and conviction of the applicant as unfolded by the prosecution are as under:- 2.1 On 23.11.1994 at 4.30 p.m. at main road Chadenibhatha Rajhara, applicant Rooplal while driving the Truck bearing registration No. A.E.K.-8012 rashly and negligently dashed the Scooter bearing registration No. C.E.R.-7494 driven by Gulshan Kumar, as a result of which, Gulshan Kumar was thrown away and later on he was hospitalized. It is further case of the prosecution that Mr. R.K. Sharma (PW-11), Station House Officer of the police Station Rajhara was present a...


Jul 03 2014

Shankar and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Court: Chhattisgarh

Decided on: Jul-03-2014

(1) Questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment affirming the judgment of conviction and partly modifying order of sentence passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicting the applicants for offence under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959 (henceforth 'the Act, 1959') and punishable under Section 11 of the Act, 1959 and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of `1,000. (Sentence was partly modified and reduced by the appellate Court to 6 months' simple imprisonment and 2 to pay fine of `500 only). (2) The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as under: (2.1). Complainant Narad (PW-1) made a report in Police Station Dongargarh on 21-5-2003 that the applicants were transporting agricultural cattle namely, buffaloes 4 in number and bullocks 12 in number for the purpose of their slaughtering. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, offence under the Act, 1959 was r...


Jul 03 2014

The State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Laxmiprasad Yadav

Court: Chhattisgarh

Decided on: Jul-03-2014

1. Seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr. P.C. the instant appeal has been filed by the State questioning the order of acquittal dated 28-3-2011 passed by Special Sessions Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Korba, District Korba (hereinafter called as Special Judge (Atrocities)) in Special Sessions Trial No. 56/2006, by which, the respondent has been acquitted from the charges framed under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called as Atrocities Act). 2. The case of the prosecution, in Short, is that on 29-9-2009, at about 9.30 a.m. the respondent, at village, Police Station Kartala abused the complainant-Kamal Singh Rathiya (P.W.1), member of Scheduled Tribe at public place in the name of caste and threatened him to kill. Thereafter, the complainant lodged First Information Report (Exhibit-P/1) to the police station Kartala and offence under ...


Jul 02 2014

Kulwant Ram Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others

Court: Chhattisgarh

Decided on: Jul-02-2014

Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking quashment of the order dated 12-10-2010 (Annexure P/1) whereby the respondent SECL has refused to correct the entry in the service book concerning his date of birth. 2) Indisputably, the petitioner joined the service as Electric Fitter in the year 1981 in SECL. In the service book, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 7-1-1951. In the year 1987 the petitioner came to know that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded as 7-1-1951 whereas his actual date of birth as per matriculation certificate is 28-5-1956. The petitioner moved an application for correction of his date of birth in the service book, however, when no decision was taken by the authorities, he preferred a petition, being WP (S) No.2687 of 2009, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23-7-2010 holding thus : (6) From the return of the respondents, it is found that in fact, no consideration has been...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial