A.K.Ram Kumar, and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar.

[p. sathasivam ; h.l. gokhale, j.j.] - the indian penal code, 1860 section 302 - punishment for murder -- sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav was instituted. sunil yadav was instituted. on 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at nawada sadar hospital, si anil kumar gupta recorded the statement of sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav and on the basis of his statement fir no 12/97 was registered with govindpur p.s under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 447 ipc against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, suresh yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav. the charge-sheet bearing no. 12/97 was submitted in fir no. 11/97 p.s. govindpur, on 30.06.1997 against brahamdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto, maho yadav, paro mahto, kuldeep yadav, sudhir yadav, bale yadav, shivan yadav and suraj yadav and sunil yadav who was later instituted. the charge sheet bearing no. 36/97 was also submitted in fir no. 12/97 p.s. govindpur, on 17.12.1997 against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav except suresh yadav s/o kesho yadav as he had died. informant-naresh yadav (pw-9) informant-sunil yadav (a9 in fir 11/97) brahmdeo yadav, darogi mahto, sunil s/o bale yadav, maho yadav, kuldeep yadav, bale yadav, suraj yadav, shiv nandan yadav, sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav, sudhir yadav and paro mahto, total 11 persons forming a group came there and surrounded them. brahmdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto and maho yadav were armed with rifle. bale yadav, kuldeep yadav, shiv nandan yadav and suraj yadav were armed with gandassa. kuldeep yadav gave gandassa blow to munshi yadav......dated 26.06.2003 passed by judicial magistrate, 1st class, patna in complaint case no. 1374 (c) of 2003 and transferring the case to the court of sri ashok kumar singh, judicial magistrate, 1st class, patna, where cognizance has been taken under section 406 of the indian penal code.3. admittedly, opposite party no. 2 was an employee of petitioner no. 5, which is represented by rest of the petitioners. the only grievance against company of the opposite party-complainant is that for the period of employment under them, the amount due as gratuity and general provident fund has not been released.4. during course of argument, the learned counsels are in agreement that taking into consideration period of one year of service of opposite party no. 2, he is not entitled for any amount under the head of gratuity, but whatever amount is contributed in general provident fund account has been deposited with appropriate authority and it is for the complainant to apply in proper format either directly or through his employer and thereafter, the authorities shall release the amount and make payment.5. the learned counsel for opposite party undertakes to get the format of application for release of the amount deposited under general provident fund scheme prepared in triplicate within a week and one copy shall be submitted to the learned counsel for the petitioners, second copy shall be send by registered post with acknowledgement due directly to his employer and send the third copy directly to assistant, provident fund commissioner, kukut pally, hyderabad. in turn the petitioners shall do the needful, if required and request the authority i.e. assistant, provident fund with a prayer to release the amount due in favour of complainant-opposite party no. 2 with a copy to him, so that, if require, the opposite party no. 2 may further fulfill other requirements.6. in view of earlier order of this court passed in criminal miscellaneous no. 36475 of 2004 dated 05th august, 2010, the.....