Jharkhand Court June 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bahlen Balmuchu Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-02-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3803; [2003(3)JCR198(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. Satyendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, J.C. to G.P. I.2. Reference in this case may be made to the order dated 15.4.2003 whereby this case was adjourned upon prayer made by the G.P. I. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the said order, he served one more copy of the said petition upon G.P. I on 16.4.2003. Mr. Sar-vendra Kumar. J.C. to G.P. I concedes and submits that a copy of the Writ Application was in fact served upon the G.R I but they have not received any instructions till date. In that view of the matter, the right to file affidavit by the State in this case is now closed.3. This is a case relating to custodial death and upon going through the pleadings made in the Writ Application, the conscience of this Court is shocked beyond words. A dacoity was committed on 27.7.1990 and upon receiving message, the police officers of the Jagannathpur Police Station proceeded to the place and apprehe...
Sharafat HussaIn Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-02-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR102(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. Ramawatar Sharma learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader No. IV.2. The petitioner has challenged the office order issued under the signature of Deputy Commissioner, Giridih vide memo No. 987 dated 25.6.1993 whereby he has ordered that the petitioner will not be entitled to anything save and except subsistence allowance on the basis of the report submitted by the disciplinary authority in the departmental proceeding.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was working as copyist in Giridih in the office of District Sub-Registrar, Giridih. By office order dated 12.8.1985 he was put under suspension on the basis of some complaints and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for various charges. From the impugned order it appears that all those charges have not been proved save and except absence of the petitioner from 4.5.1985 to 22.5.1985. The impugned order was therefore issued on...
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Vs. Karu Pandit and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)BLJR1352; [2003(3)JCR177(Jhr)]
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 378(1)(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure oh behalf of the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in connection with GR No. 1317 of 1992 (TR No. 180 of 1996), whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate though convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 506, IPC but the accused persons were released after due admonition as provided under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 3.9.1992 in between 7 to 8 am the accused persons were ploughing the land, which was given to them by the informant in exchange of his land. The informant went upon the land and raised protest on which accused persons abused him and wanted to assault him. On seeing this the informant fled away towards his house but the accused persons rushed to his house and assaulted him with lathi. The sister of the informant also c...
Kamal Kumar Singhania and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-02-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR195(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. An Encroachment Case No. 01/98 was filed to take steps for eviction of the petitioners under provisions of Section 66A of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989 read with Section 6 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. It was alleged that the petitioners have encroached forest land on Plot No. 11 of Village Chakla, P.S. Ormanjhi, P.S. No. 32, district Ranchi. The complaint petition was filed by the Director, Bhagwan Birsa Jaiwik Udyan, Ranchi.2. M/s. Vinimay Leasing Finance Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, having received a notice vide Memo No. 1910, dated 23rd May, 1998, moved before this Court in CWJC No. 1886/98(R). In the said case, this Court taking into consideration that the petitioner of the said case claimed right and title in respect of the land, in question, and relied on one or other orders passed by the State authorities and the fact that the respondents in their counter affidavit disputed the right and title of petitioner, vide ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›