Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2556
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31-10-2002 delivered by Shri Lakhan Singh, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Distt. Korba in Sessions Trial No. 478/2001 whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 376, 366, 363 and 342, I.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 376, I.P.C. to R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 366, I.P.C. to R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 363 and to R.I. for 3 months under Section 342, I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month each for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376, I.P.C.2. The prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years and 2 months and a student of Class IX, left for her school on a cycle at about 10.15 a.m. from her house. Near Polytechnic College, by the side of the road, the appellant-Kishore Bahadur along with Ram Bh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. In this criminal appeal, the appellant has called in question his conviction and sentence under Section 124-A of the IPC; under Sections 8 (1), 8 (3) and 8(5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jansuraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 (for short ‘the Act of 2005') and under Section 18 and 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short `the Act of 1967') as amended by the Act of 2004. For offence under Section 124-A of the IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional R.I. for 3 months; for offence under Sections 8(1), 8(3) and 8(5) of the Act of, 2005, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 3 months for each of the offence; for offence under Sections 18 and 39 (2) of the Act of 1967, as amended by the Act of 2004, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2002(2)MPHT7(CG)
Fakhruddin, J. 1. Heard.2. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19-12-2001, passed by A.D.J., Durg, whereby application for withdrawal of F.D.R. amount has been rejected.3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the deceased was a Nepali and he died in an accident and the claimants are widow and children. He further submits that the amount is needed for treatment of the child of the deceased, who is seriously ill in Nepal. Her permanent address is Village Paharipur, Post Patharia, Dist. Kelali Sethi Anchal, Nepal. At present she is temporarily staying Bhilai. Counsel for the applicants relied upon a judgment reported in 2000(2) M.P.H.T. 357 (Mangibai v. Suresh) and a judgment of this reported in 2001(1) C.G.L.J. (Bharat Ram v. Abdul Murad and Ors.) and submitted the relevant medical documents. Counsel for the applicants submits that he himself is satisfied.4. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record, the revision petition i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : AIR2009Chh22
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the validity and legality of the notice dated 28-7-2008 (Annex-ure-P/4) under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act'). Further challenge is to the reply dated 10-10-2006 (Annexure-P/6) to the legal notice of the petitioners and intimation-cum-letter demanding possession of securities dated 23-10-2006 (Annexure-P/9).2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company, engaged in the business of milling, sorting & trading of rice and related products. Petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 are the Directors of the petitioner No. 1. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 was allegedly given financial assets in the shape of packing credit hypothecation limit, foreign bill purchase limit, term loan and foreign letter of cred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2010(1)MPHT98(CG)
Rajeshwar Lal Jhanwar, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal dated 5th September, 1991 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Special Case No. 1/88, whereby the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents from the charge under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act').2. Due to death of respondent No. 1-R.K. Pandey, during the pendency of this appeal, the appeal on behalf of respondent R.K. Pandey has been abated.3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Akram Ali, who is resident of Village Gajra was working on the post of Fitter in WCL. Due to some altercation between him and Tulsi at Bankimongara, Tulsi and his brother had lodged a report against him in the Police Station, Bankimongara. After 3-4 days of lodging of report, Head Constable Rampher (respondent No. 2) of Police Station, Bankimongara ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
ORDER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 07.05.2011 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner, working as Lower Division Clerk (for short `the LDC') in the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, has been dismissed from service, under the provisions of Chapter IX Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short "the Rules, 1966"). 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC vide order dated 29.09.2003. After completion of his probation period, he was regularized by order dated 03.12.2005. The petitioner was the elected President of the Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Sachvialaya Shashkiya Karmachari Sangh. On account of certain illegalities and irregularities, the petitioner made representations before the respondent authoritiesregarding various demands of the employees. The petitioner ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
(Criminal Appeal under Section 374 CrPC) Radhe Shyam Sharma, J 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th January, 1996 passed in Session Trial No.274/1991 by 2nd Additional Session Judge, Durg. By the impugned judgment, appellant Vinod has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- On 05.6.91, at about 1.15 p.m., deceased Sukalu Ram was returning from the house of Bhikamlal Soni. When he reached near Shastri Square, appellant Vinod and acquitted co-accused persons, namely, Kuljeet Singh and Rambachan stopped him and appellant Vinod demanded money from the deceased for drinking liquor. Upon denial by the deceased, the appellant assaulted the deceased with knife on his chest and ran away. Deceased Sukalu Ram narrated the incident to Bhikamlal Soni and thereafter both went to Police Station Chhawani, Bhilai to lodge the First Information Report (Ex-P/18). Sukalu Ram was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2003(1)MPHT33(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. The petitioner who is an Advocate has filed this petition styling as Public Interest Litigation. He is a social worker as well. It is submitted that he has deep and extreme feelings towards preservation of the air, water and the natural environments.2. The reliefs claimed are in Paragraph 7 of the petition, which are as under:--(i) To issue a direction to the respondents not to lease out the tanks (talab) having Nistar rights for the fishery purposes to the contractors. (ii) For declaring all the tanks for Nistar purposes which were reserved and declared by the respondents for Nistar in the year 1954 during preparation of Bandobust and Nistar Patrak. (iii) To issue a direction or any other writ to the respondents to prepare a list of tanks, having rights of Nistar, which were available in 1954 and now available in 2002. (iv) To issue a writ to the respondents to make proper programme for protection and improvement of natural environment including forests, tanks, l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2006(2)MPHT9(CG)
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 374/1990 filed by Munna alias Raghunandan and Criminal Appeal No. 552/1990 filed by Raju are directed against the judgment dated 30th January, 1990 delivered by Shri B.K. Shrivastava, Addl. Sessions Judge to Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No. 64/1988 whereby the appellant-Raju was convicted under Section 302, IPC for committing murder of Santosh Kumar and the appellant-Munna @ Raghunandan was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for committing murder of Santosh Kumar in furtherance of common intention shared with Raju and both were sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. Co-accused Dinesh Jaiswal who was also prosecuted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC alongwith the above named appellants was absconding throughout the trial and was proceeded under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant-Raju after undergoing sentence was released from Central Jail, Raipur on 18-12-2002 on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27.2.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2/Bank accepting the resignation submitted by the petitioner on 7.9.2004 vide Annexure P-1 with effect from 11.3.2006. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner entered in the service of respondent No.2/Bank on 1.10.1982 and was given various assignments to deal with. On 7.9.2004 he submitted an application to the Chairman of the Bank seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 6.2.2005 or 15.9.2005 or as per its own discretion. On 1.7.2005 the petitioner again submitted the second resignation but it was withdrawn by him on 30.8.2005 vide Annexure P-2 mentioning the family problems to be the reason there-for. Further case of the petitioner is that on 25.12.2005 vide Annexure R-9 he submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement which he withdrew on 23.2.2006 stating that he wished to retire in the year 2...
Tag this Judgment!