Court : Chhattisgarh
(1) The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the three accused persons (appellants) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2002 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.132/1996. (2) Facts of the case as per the prosecution, in brief, are that a charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 201/34 was filed against the accused persons, i.e., the appellants and their father Lekhani Sahu, accused No.4 (since expired). According to the prosecution, one Nirmala Bai (deceased), wife of appellant No.3 Shiv Kumar, was forced to commit suicide by the accused persons after she was subjected to physical and mental torture. As per the prosecution, on account of excessive cruelty made out by the accused persons, Nirmala Bai had left the house on 28.1.1995 and that since then she was missing. However, subsequently, on 2.11.1995, dead body of Nirmala Bai was recovered from a nearby well belong...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18/12/1998 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda-Bazar in S.T. No.458/96 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Appellant has been convicted for attempting to commit rape with the prosecutrix at 06.45 am on 11/01/95. 3. FIR Ex. P/1 was lodged by the prosecutrix at 14.15 hours on the date of incident itself. She informed the Police that in the morning she had gone to attend natures call in the nearby agricultural field. When she was about to return, the appellant came to the place and threatened that he would ruin her. He caught hold of her, fell on the ground and climbed over her. She pushed the appellant by kick and raised alarm o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26/08/1998 passed by the Special Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal case No.1/98 whereby learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (henceforth, Act, 1955) for committing violation of clause 3 (1)(c) and clause 6(1)(c) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1993 (henceforth, Order 1993). Both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs. 500/- (each), in default of payment of fine to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 10 days. 2. Facts of the case, briefly stated are, that at about 1.10 P.M. on 11/01/98 Food Inspector Dhamtari Shri R.K. Shukla along with Naib Tahsildar Shri D.R. Margiya raided Hotel Sainath Sweet House, Bus Stand, Dhamtari belonging to father of the appellant No.1. During raid it was found that one domestic LPG cylinder of Indian Oil Corpora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26/08/1998 passed by the Special Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal case No.1/98 whereby learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (henceforth, Act, 1955) for committing violation of clause 3 (1)(c) and clause 6(1)(c) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1993 (henceforth, Order 1993). Both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs. 500/- (each), in default of payment of fine to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 10 days. 2. Facts of the case, briefly stated are, that at about 1.10 P.M. on 11/01/98 Food Inspector Dhamtari Shri R.K. Shukla along with Naib Tahsildar Shri D.R. Margiya raided Hotel Sainath Sweet House, Bus Stand, Dhamtari belonging to father of the appellant No.1. During raid it was found that one domestic LPG cylinder of Indian Oil Corpora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. In both these criminal revisions, common question of law and fact is involved, as such, they are heard analogously and stand disposed of by this common order. 2. The essential facts required to be noticed for judging the correctness of the impugned order are as under:- 2.1 The non-applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for brevity) stating inter alia that she was married to the applicant. She further pleaded that immediately after the marriage, applicant and his family members treated her with cruelty and demanded dowry. It was further pleaded that she was forced to live separately on account of valid and sufficient cause, as such, she is living with her parents. She further pleaded that a decree for divorce has been granted on 25/02/2002 by the Third Additional District Judge, Durg. It was also pleaded that though, she is practicing Advocate duly registered in the year 2004, but she is unable to maintain herself, where...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. This revision is directed against the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2011 (Brijlal and another v. State of Chhattisgarh) and also against the Criminal Appeal No. 14/2011 (Pankuram v. State of Chhattisgarh). 2. The Criminal Case No. 23/2010 (State v. Kailash and others), in which, Brijlal Hidko, Sop Singh and Pankuram Kureti were accused. The trial Magistrate acquitted them and directed confiscation of their vehicle after appeal period. 3. The said judgment was delivered on 28/10/2010 and thereafter, two separate appeals were preferred against confiscation of vehicle. On 02/12/2011, learned Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals holding that Criminal Appeal No. 14/2011 preferred by Pankuram is delayed by 2 months and 13 days, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 15/2011 preferred by Brijlal and Sop Singh is barred by 16 days and no application for condonation of delay in appeal was filed by them. 4. Three accused persons preferred this re vision against the aforesaid orders challe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
(Open Court) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. Petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 19-7-2012 (Annexure P/2) whereby the State Government has transferred him from BRCC LANGUAGE, District Korea to Panchayat and Rural Development Department, on his repatriation to the Panchayat Department. 2. The petitioner is a is a Shiksha Karmi Grade II. Vide order dated 15-3-2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Project Coordinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Korea (for short 'RGSM') the petitioner was directed to work as BRCC at Khadgawa. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by order dated 15-3-2012 the petitioner was sent on deputation, therefore, the petitioner cannot be repatriated without obtaining his consent. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the order Annexure P/1 was passed by the District Project Coordinator, RGSM, Korea, without mentioning that the petitioner is sent on deputation, therefore, even if ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 30/11/2007 passed by the Family Court, Raigarh in M.J.C. No.37/2006. 2. The present applicants were granted maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the Cr.P.C. for brevity) by order dated 17/01/2006 and it has been held that each of the applicants are entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- from the non-applicant. 3. The applicants levied execution for arrears of maintenance amount Rs. 40,000/-. In the said execution, the non-applicant filed an application (I.A. No. 1) stating that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed in his favour directing the applicant No. 1 to live with him. Since she has failed to execute that decree, therefore, the non-applicant is not liable to make payment of the maintenance amount after the date of the impugned order i.e. 30/11/2007. 4. The Family Court, by its impugned order allowed the application and held that since the applicant No. 1 has failed ...
Tag this Judgment!