Court : Chhattisgarh
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal is directed against impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7-4-98 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti in Sessions Trial No. 128/07 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as described below-- As per prosecution story, Navdha Bai was married to appellant-Ramayandas. For marriage of brother of Navdha Bai, a loan was taken from the appellants, which was not being repaid. Navdha Bai was being repeatedly subjected to harassment, cruelty and she was left behind in her parental house, pregnancy was aborted. The loan amount of Rs. 6,000/- was repaid with interest, total amounting to Rs. 9,075/- on 24-9-1996 in the presence of witnesses in Panchayat meeting. After three months, on 18-12-1996, Navdha Bai was found dead in the village well near her house. A merg intimation in Ex. P/16 was recorded on the information given by Bagwan Das. Police, after arriving at the scene of occurrence, gave notices to the witne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. - (1) Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners herein have sought appropriate writ(s) commanding respondent No. 2/Raipur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'RDA') herein to execute and register the lease deed in their favour in respect of the land admeasuring 42,000 sq.ft. of Scheme No. 32 Devendra Nagar of said Authority and also sought related consequential benefits. Imperative facts necessary for adjudication of dispute raised in this writ petition are as under: 1.1 Respondent No. 2 -RDA took a decision to auction the land admeasuring 1,08,000 sq. feet, which was lying vacant in Scheme No. 32 of respondent No. 2 -RDA, known as Devendra Nagar Scheme. Accordingly, the auction sale was held on 24 -5 -1985. In the said auction, bid offered by the petitioners was accepted being highest. The petitioners, in accordance with terms and conditions of the auction, were directed to depo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
T.P. Sharma, J. 1. This reference has been made by the learned single Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sarijay K. Agrawal) under Rule 32(2)(ii) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 for placing it before Hon'ble the Chief Justice with a recommendation to place the same before larger Bench. Vide order dated 14-11-2013, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has directed to place the reference before this Bench to answer the following stated question of law:-- "Whether complainant is entitled to prefer an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Session against the judgment of acquittal passed by subordinate Criminal Court arising out of criminal complaint filed by complainant, or he is required to prefer an appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court after obtaining leave- Scope of appeal against the judgment of acquittal at the instance of the complainant under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short '...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. Their Lordships in the Division Bench could not reach a consensus as to the culpability of appellant Rajesh Kumar Kaushik, and therefore, by order dated 19-9-2014, the appeal was directed to be laid before third judge in terms of Sections 370 and 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). Order of reference reads thus, There is a difference of opinion between us. One of us has convicted the Appellant and the other has acquitted him. In view of this, the matter be placed before the third judge for opinion, after nomination. 2. By order dated 16-10-2014, Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice directed the matter to be placed before this Bench. 3. Section 392 of the Code reads as - 392. Procedure where Judges of Court of Appeal are equally divided.-When an appeal under this Chapter is heard by a High Court before a Bench of Judges and they are divided in opinion, the appeal, with their opinions, shall be laid before another Judge of that Court, and that Judge, after ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Oral Order: 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the applicants have filed this application for grant of regular bail stating inter alia that they have been arrested in connection with POR No. 8837/18, Forest Ranger, Duldula, Jashpur, Police Station Tapkara, District Jashpur, for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, the Act, 1972) and under Section 26(i) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short, the Act, 1927). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicants haunted Barking Deer which is a animal specified in Schedule-III of the Act of 1972, and concealed the meat of such animal in the forest which is an offence punishable under Section 26(1)(i) of the Act, 1927. 3. Shri Dilman Rati Minj, learned counsel for the applicants would submit that for commission of offence under Section 9 of Act of 1952, punishment is prescribed under Section 51(1) of Act of 1972, and shall, on conviction, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. In this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India preferred by the accused persons, the question arises for consideration is; when a Magistrate is said to have taken cognizance of any offence; and whether once having taken cognizance of the offence, it is open for the Magistrate to proceed under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.'), for directing investigation by the Police and submitting a report. 2. Complainant Smt. Heera Bai has filed a complaint against the petitioners and three accused persons under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). When the complaint was filed on 03.05.2012 the Magistrate, instead of proceeding to examine the complaint, postponed the issue of process and directed the Police to submit a report. The concerned police sought adjournment on further dates of hearing to pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the orders Annexure-P/11 and P/12 whereby the Hon'ble Governor of Chhattisgarh has pardoned respondents 5 and 6 in exercise of powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and has directed their release from jail. 2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that respondents 5 and 6 along with several other accused persons were tried for committing offences under Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC for committing murder of deceased Hanua at 8.30 am on 11th July, 1975. The trial Court acquitted Arjun, Bhikham, Nanku and Parethan. Respondents 5 and 6 along with some other accused persons were convicted by the trial Court and the said conviction was affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court, by judgment dated 5.10.1990 in Cr.A. No.168/79,allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of all other accused except responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. These writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India have been preferred by the petitioner (complainant) challenging the orders passed by the Sessions Court entertaining the revision application preferred by the private respondents to challenge the order passed by the Magistrate under the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). * WP (Cr.) No.116 of 2013 :- The Magistrate, by its order dated 30.09.2013 has directed registration of First Information Report (for short 'FIR'), investigation and submission of final report under Section 173 of the Code. The Revisional Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba, by the impugned order dated 24.10.2013, has restrained the Police from proceeding ahead with the matter pursuant to the Magistrate's order dated 30.09.2013. * WP (Cr.) No.149 of 2014 :- A similar order was passed by the Magistrate on 17.07.2014. Against which the revision application has been en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Oral Order: 1. WP(C) Nos.3908/2008, 4089/2007 and 4608/2008 are arising out of Land Acquisition Case No.10/A-82/04-05/04/2005 (Village Aghanpur) whereas WP(C) No.3693/2007 is arising out of Land Acquisition Case No.11/A-82/2004-05/2005 (Village Hatkachora). 2. In the first batch of three writ petitions, challenge has been thrown to the legality and validity of the Land Acquisition Proceeding including the award passed in Land Acquisition Case No.10/A-82/04-05/04/2005 on 27.1.2007 which was approved by the State Government on 10.5.2007 whereas in the latter writ petition, challenge has been thrown to the legality and validity of the Land Acquisition Proceeding including the award passed in Land Acquisition Case No.11/A-82/2004-05/2005 on 21.11.2006 which was approved by the State Government on 14.6.2007. 3. Initially challenge is on the ground that notification under Sections 4 and 6 are vague; principles of natural justice have not been followed; objection to the acquisition has illega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Collector, Kabirdham vide Annexure-P/1 dismissing his reference application under Section 21(4) of the CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act'), which in turn was preferred to challenge the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 4.5.2013 passed by the Gram Panchayat to remove the petitioner as a consequence of motion of no confidence being carried against him. 2. The petitioner is elected Sarpanch of village Panchayat Majgaon, District Kawardha. Some of the Panchas of the said Gram Panchayat moved the motion of no confidence on 12.4.2013 presenting the same before the prescribed authority. The said prescribed authority issued notice to the petitioner and other office bearers/members of the Panchayat on 27.4.2013 informing that a meeting to consider motion of no confidence shall take place at 12 noon on 4.5.2013. On the said date, 9 Panchas voted in favour of the motion, 2 members voted agai...
Tag this Judgment!