Dismissed

Gauranand @ Nanki Yadav v. State of Chhttisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Feb 2019CRR/521/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding conviction for brandishing a sword under the Arms Act, the High Court of Chhattisgarh found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and maintained the lower courts finding of guilt, dismissing the applicant's revision.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed with the impugned judgment maintaining the conviction.

Gauranand @ Nanki Yadav Vs State of Chhttisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Revision No. 521 of 2005

¶4

Judgment reserved on 03. 12.2018

¶5

Judgement delivered on 06.02.2019

¶6

Gauranand @ Nanki Yadav S/o. Late Ganesh Ram Yadav , Aged about 22 years, R/o. CSEB, Qrt No. S.H. 489, Korba East, District Korba (C.G.)

¶7

---- Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Rampur ITI, Korba, P.S. Korba District Korba (C.G.)

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Mrs. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor

¶13

CAV Order

¶14

The allegation contained in FIR (Ex.P-1) is that on 23.02.2002 at about 4.30 pm the accused/applicant was found brandishing a sword and thereby frightening the people by his act. Offence under Section 25(B) of the Arms Act was registered against the accused/applicant and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed accordingly.

¶15

2 . The trial Court found the accused/applicant guilty under Section 25(1)(B) (b) of the Arms Act which in appeal has also been affirmed vide judgment impugned. Hence, this revision.

¶16

3 . Counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are not in consonance with

¶17

the evidence of the witnesses and therefore, they are not sustainable under the law.

¶18

4 . State counsel, however, supports the judgment impugned.

¶19

5 . Overall testimony of PW -1 and PW-2 goes to show that the accused/applicant was seen carrying and brandishing the sword with an intention to frighten the people of the locality. They have also described the size of the sword so seized in their presence under Ex.P-1. PW-3 has gone on to state that had the police not reached the spot timely some mishap might have occurred. He is also the witness to seizure of the sword made under Ex.P-1. Thus, the findings recorded by both the Courts below holding the accused/applicant guilty under the Arms Act are fully based on the evidence on record. No illegality or infirmity is noticeable in the judgment impugned and therefore, it deserves to be and is hereby maintained with dismissal of this revision.

¶20

Order Accordingly.

¶21

Sd/- (Vimla Singh Kapoor) JUDGE

¶22

Jyotishi/ Santosh

Gauranand @ Nanki Yadav v. State of Chhttisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gauranand @ Nanki Yadav v. State of Chhttisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna @ Rupsingh Sethiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Damyanti Devta Vs Rupanand Devta

Dharamlal and Sunaram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kejau Ram and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shekhar Khare (Deleted) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nagendra Panika Vs State of Chhattisgarh