Shri Sukhadev Ram v. State
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Shri Sukhadev Ram Nishad, years' Mahasamund. resident 52 RESPONDENTS
State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Ministry Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur.
The Collector, Mahasamund. <~^'.' <~1 .^•~.-^ ^r^6 l^ ^\.^- 'o o ^' •«> ,^t ^- yO r7 .i^. Q^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIGLES 226 SB 227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS /CERTIORARI ETC OR DIRECTION(S) / ORDER(S) IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. A~"~ XI-HC-22 ^^ ^nqi?iq, -sCims. -ferray 13>..5^'t°i 19 aii^rq;' •feiwsntn '^fft^T s^^ii^ SD^F'^Riiwaftn 2-2-2006 Shri B.P. Sharma, counse! '^T^^'^T1 ^WW ^ ^^ •d^l^K ^ srfigifan^r' Shri Sandeep Dubey. Govi; Application for urgent heari|ia is ailowed. for ths petitioner. Advocate for the State. n The petitioner has fiied th| 2006 passed by the respondenij the petitioner's services have beej The petitioner was a 'wBB Magistrate, Mahasamund. He wa^ - anb taken bribe of Rs. 4,0001- Estabiishment, Raipur. Challan petitioner has been convicted j Section 13(2) of the Prevention sentenced to two years rigoreus i|ni defeuit of payment of fine to Three years rigorous imprisonmeht payment of fine to further underg^ conviction, the petltiQner prefert' bearina Criminai No.
639/2005. |s petition against the order dated 18-1- no. 2-Coliector, Mahasamund whereby ^ terminated. In the Office of Coliector/District prosecuted on the around that he had was caught by the Speciai Police |was filed and case was fiied and the u^ider Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with iof Corruption Act, 1988 and has been ihiprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000;'- in fUrther undergo.R.i. for two months and and a fine of Rs. 3.000/-, in defauit of (> R.l.for three months respeciavely. After •|'6d an appeai b.efore the High Court ]The appeat is pending however, he has (ion has not been stayed. Since, His servtoes have been terminated. The on the ground that he has no{ been been granted baii. The convlcl petitioner has been convicted, chaiienae is to the order of {ermirfetion heard. ^ [1[ft^ ^Pa^ £^. ^si •^pnn^, •grtems, teirey ^'r^f^ -f 2r SD^I^I 'f?;li?? 3T!g?T ^•{[^^•irg^ sii^r TOIRIT •gf??r -Y-. +Wfd'ii1-f tTFti^ if 1ST^<r«iyf( •^? siiigii sn^i 'for Counsel the petittoner was feaointediy asted as to whether he disputes the conviction.
He stated tha< he does not dispute it. All this is admitted. No enquiry as such is reqtrit t'ed. Since the petitioner has been convicted and the appellate authoritil' susoended the conviction, there is no in( oUt (Jt for any interference in the order- materiat on record, no case is made cireumstances of the case and Havina considered the facts J' has only granted bail and not ibrmity in the impugned order. CtbghA-^ dated 18-1-2006 passed by the extTaordinaryjurisdiction under Articte no. 2 whiie exereisina frie 2E P6/227 of the Constitution of India. The petjtion fafls and is dismissefi Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge f' ^- 1
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.