Jharkhand Court July 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.
Murli Prasad and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1921; [2005(3)JCR96(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both the sides.2. This criminal writ has been filed for issuance of a mandamus upon the respondents to release the truck No. CG-15-ZC-0122 and Truck No. BR-13-G-0392 seized in connection with Panki P.S. Case No. 1 of 2003 (G.R. Case No. 39 of 2003) along with the coal loaded on that which was also subsequently seized in connection with Panki P.S. Case No. 9 of 2003 on 18-2-2003.3. These two trucks apparently were loaded with coal and were seized and FIR was lodged as first Panki P.S. Case No. 1 of 2003 and thereafter prayer was made before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, for release of the trucks as also the coal loaded on those trucks. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 28-1-2003 passed in Panki P.S. Case No. 1 of 2003 (supra) directed the release of the truck No 15-ZG-0122 with coal in favour of the petitioner No. 1 Murli Prasad on furnishing indemnity bond of Rs. 3,00,000/- within one surety of the...
Shahnawaz Ansari and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ869
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed for quashing the investigation arising out of Giridih Nagar P.S. Case No. 78/2003, Cr. M. P. Case No. 615/2003, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, and for quashing the order dated 11-6-2003 passed in that case.2. The short facts of this case are that the FIR has been lodged under Section 323, 341, 379, 384 IPC and 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Annexure-1. As per Annexure 1, investigation had been given to one S. B. Chowdhury, Sub-Inspector.3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the investigation is being conducted by an officer, who is not authorized to investigate the case under Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. It appears that on the request of the Investigating Authority for issuance of warrant of arrest, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued warrant of arrest ag...
Badri Prasad Mistry Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR433(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner prays for quashing the order/letter dated 2.2.1996 as contained in Annexure 16, whereby and whereunder his representation in relation to his claim for seniority over the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 has been rejected. He further prays for quashing of Annexure 6 which is the order dated 19.1.1991 by which the respondents Nos. 8 and 9 were provisionally transferred horizontally to the Legal Discipline for a period of one year. The petitioner also prays for quashing of the order dated 27.8.1993 (Annexure 8) by which the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were permanently absorbed in the Legal Discipline. The petitioner has also made a prayer that the respondents be directed to refix his seniority vis-a- vis the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in terms of Common Coal Cadre.2. The contention of the petitioner is that both the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 belonged to the Secretarial Discipline and therefore in terms of the Common Coal Cadre, they could have been h...
Ranjan Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ547; [2003(3)JCR582(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. The question to be answered in this writ petition is whether a proceeding under the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) can be quashed when the final report against the offender under Section 10 of the Act has been submitted after 2 years and 4 months of the receipt of the seizure list by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate? Another question requires to be answered is whether Section 468(3), Cr PC is applicable in the circumstances of the case? 2. The questions aforesaid arose out of the facts that the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 16.8.2001 taking cognizance under Section 10 of the Act against the petitioner in Forest Case No. F 9/99, T.R. No. 898/2001, pending in the Court of Shri D. Burnwal. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khunti. Some properties of the petitioner, which were found to be in contravention of Section 10 of the Act, were seized and reported to the S.D.J.M....
Dr. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR344(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, State and respondent No. 6.2. Admittedly, the petitioner. Dr. Akhilesh Pratap Singh and the respondent No. 6, Dr. Braj Kishore Mundari have not been substantively promoted to the rank of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Garhwa. The pelitioner is holding the substantive post of District Tuberculosis Officer, Garhwa whereas respondent No. 6 is holding the substantive post of Superintendent, Sub-Divisional Hospital, Garhwa.3. The post of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Garhwa fell vacant since 31st January, 2003 on retirement of one Tulsi Prasad. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa vide. Memo No. 217, dated 31st January, 2003 asked the petitioner to function as Incharge Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Garhwa until further order of the Headquarter. The State Government subsequently issued impugned Notification No. 45 (4), dated 18 February, 2003 whereby respondent No. 6 has been allowed to hold the cha...
Most. Jank Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR220(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The husband of petitioner-late Premlal Bhagat was a Research Assistant under the State in its Road Construction Division, Godda, who retired on 31st of January, 2000 and later on died.3. During his life time, Premlal Bhagat not having been provided with retiral benefits moved before this Court in W.P (S) 383 of 2002. In the said case, this Court vide order dated 16th January, 2002 remitted the matter for determination of claim by respondents at first instance with direction to the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Godda, Jharkhand and A.G. Bihar & Jharkhand to finalise his pension and to pay the admitted dues within three months.4. It is stated that the husband of petitioner forwarded the order of the Court but he has not been paid the benefits. Later on he died on 17th June, 2002 in I.G.I.M.S. Patna.5. It appears that while the petitioner's husband was suffering from illness, the respondents issued impugned office order N...
Teklal Mahto and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ84
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the three appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30-5-2001 and 31-5-2001 respectively passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 171 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offence under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. How ever, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case lies in a narrow compass as alleged that Mungia Devi daughter of the informant was married with Teklal Mahto, appellant No. 1 in the year 1994 and after marriage, the in-laws of Mungia Devi started torturing her on the ground that she had brought ghost from her Naihar re...
Chandra Pal Singh Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1502
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Three accused persons including, the present appellant were tried for committing the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. The VIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi vide his judgment dated 30th June, 1997 in S.T. No. 487 of 1991 and 140 of 1992 T.R. Nos. 6/91 and 64/92. acquitted the other two accused persons namely Ram Nath Singh and Bhuneshwar Mochi including the present appellant from charge levelled against them under Sections 399/402 of the Indian Penal Code. But however, the appellant was convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and he was further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and was further sentenced to undergo R.I, for 2 years.2. The prosecution cased in short is that while the informant was on duty at the barr...
Khublal Mahto Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR92(Jhr)]
ORDERVishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant named above against the impugned judgment and order dated 7.9.1990 passed in Sessions Case Nos. 152 of 1987/163 of 1989 by Shri A.C. Das, Third Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka at camp Jamtara whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for six years.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 1) of PW 7, Rekha Turi, the informant and said to be the victim of ravishment in this case recorded by ASI, Yadu Paswan of Jamtara PS on 30.9.1986 at 15.00 hours at C.I. Office, Jamtara regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 23.9.1986 at 12 O'clock in the day in her house situate in village Amdiha where she is said to have been ravished by the appellant. The case was instituted by drawing of the formal FIR (Ext. 2) on 1.10.1986 at 16.00 hours.3. The prosec...
Project Officer (Agent) Maheshpur Colliery of B.C.C. Ltd. and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR133(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard counsel for the appellants and counsel for the legal representatives of original respondent No. 3.2. This appeal is filed on behalf of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. The appellants initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for an order of eviction in respect of 30 decimals of land which according to the appellants, was in unauthorized occupation of original respondent No. 3. The original respondent No. 3 resisted the proceedings on the plea that the appellants had entered into an agreement for the purchase of the land in question on payment of compensation and having done so, they could not invoke the provisions of the Public Premises Act. The Estate Officer found that the land was the surface of a mine, a part of original lease hold granted for mining purposes to the erstwhile owner of the mine and the right, titl...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »