Jharkhand Court March 2004 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.
Suresh Sah and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR419(Jhr)]
Vishnu Deo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellants has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.2.1999 and 13.3.1999 respectively passed in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1998 by Sri Hari Shankar Prasad, Sessions Judge, Dumka, Santhal Pargana whereby and whereunder the appellants were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years each under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. However, no sentence was awarded to them for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of PW 2, Suresh Sah, the father of Lucho Devi, the deceased in this case, recorded by I.O., PW 7 S.I. Suresh O/C Saraiyahat P.S. on 31.7.1997 at 10.00 hours at the house of the appellant in village Titmo P.S. Saraiyahat District Dumka regarding the occurrence which is said to have...
Basudeo Mahto and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR223(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioners, who were the displaced persons on account of Punasi Reservoir Scheme in the district of Deoghar, have prayed for inclusion of their names in Category I of the Deoghar District displaced persons penal list dated 30.9.2001.3. The State in their counter-affidavit has stated that in view of the new rehabilitation policy, the scheme framed by the Government of Bihar dated 18.9.1993 has lost its force and it is not valid at present and therefore, the prayer of the petitioners for placing them in Category I in place of Category II has become meaningless. It is further stated that under the new rehabilitation policy of the Government of Jharkhand, a fresh list of displaced persons of Punasi Reservoir scheme is being prepared and the benefits will be given to the displaced persons including the petitioners as per the new policy.4. Since the petitioners are the displaced persons and the fresh list of displaced persons is being pre...
Sangi Hambram and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1057; 2004CriLJ3375; [2005(2)JCR427(Jhr)]
Lakshman Uraon, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.5.1997, passed by Sri J.K. Narayan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 1993 (G.R. No. 545 of 1992), whereby and whereunder, all the three appellants have been convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. They have further been convicted under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. However, the sentences in respect of all the appellants have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is based on the First Information Report, lodged by Duni Purty (PW 8), recorded on 16.9.1992 at 18.30 hours regarding an occurrence, which took place in the night of 15/16th...
Governing Body of Paramveer Albert Ekka Memorial College and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR1(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. These writ petitions were once finally disposed of by this Court by judgment 'dated 4.10.1991. The said judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court without going specifically into the merits of the case, remanded the writ petitions to this Court directing it to re-examine matters in the light of the decision rendered by a Constitution Bench of that Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 2002 (8) SCC 481. The parties were given liberty to file fresh pleadings, if any. It was directed that the State should bring all statutory enactments, orders, schemes and regulations relating to education, in conformity with the said decision. The petitioners in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991, after the remit by the Supreme Court, have filed a supplementary affidavit and further pleadings have been made also by the other parties, including the intervener.2. What was challenged in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 before this Court was an order by the Governmen...
State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. (Smt.) Girish Kumari Prasad and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(52)BLJR1005; [2004(2)JCR524(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard counsel for the appellants and counsel for the first respondent. When the matter came up for admission, since the contesting respondent had appeared, the appeal itself was finally heard with the consent of the parties and it is being disposed off finally by this judgment.2. The State of Jharkhand and its officers, the respondents in the writ petition, are the appellants in this appeal. The writ petitioner, the contesting respondent, challenged the order dated 20.11.1998 issued by the Joint Director, Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna by which the time bound promotion at the second stage granted to her earlier was cancelled on finding that he had not completed the requisite number of years of service before her retirement. Her case in the writ petition while challenging that order, was only that she had been granted such time bound promotion while in service and she having retired, the same could not be revoked retrospectively. The appellants pointed out that though th...
Bhupati Nath Giri Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR452(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Reference may be made to the order dated 17.2.2004, which reads as under:'Petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Teacher in 1981. He has been paid only Rs. 19,500/- by way of gratuity in 1996. From Annexure 4 it appears that the District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide Memo No. 1956, dated 13th December, 2003 requested the District Superintendent of Education. Saraikella to take appropriate steps for payment of pension. In the peculiar facts of the case I direct the District Superintendent of Education, Singhbhum West Jamshedpur and District Superintendent of Education, Saraikella to appear before this Court on 9th March, 2004. On that day they must bring with them cheque or draft in respect of retiral dues payable to the petitioner so that very unpleasant and harsh order may not be passed against them.Put up this case on 9th March, 2004.Let of copy of this order be handed over the learned JC to SC II.'2. Pursuant to the aforesa...
Dr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR48(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 2337 of 2003 is the appellant in this appeal. In that writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order placing him under suspension in view of his being an accused in six criminal cases which has attained notoriety as the Fodder Scam cases. The order of suspension shows that it was being issued under Rule 49-A(1) of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. The said rule empowers the Government to place a Government servant under suspension in a case where disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated nor is pending, or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial.2. The learned Single Judge took the view that his suspension was valid in terms of Rule 49(A)(1) of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and there was no justification for interference. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed.3. Challenging this decision, it...
Rajesh Murmu and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and 66 ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR160(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioners seek a direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letters as well as posting orders with regard to the petitioners in terms of the specific direction issued by respondent No. 2, the Home Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi and respondent No. 3, Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide letter No. 299 dated 22nd January, 2004 and Memo No. 83 dated 22.1.2004.3. Petitioners' case is that they participated in the written and physical test for appointment on the post of Constable pursuant Lo the advertisement dated, 15.8.2003. They were declared successful in the result published by the respondents. Their case is than inspite of the fact that they fulfill all the criteria for appointment, the Superintendent of Police (Rail) of the districts concerned are not issuing appointment letters although direction in this regard has been issued by the competent authority as mentioned hereinabove.4. In such circumstance, wi...
Nuneshwar Mahato and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1754; [2004(2)JCR205(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellants has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.4.1999 and 24.4.1999 respectively passed in Sessions Case No. 86 of 1984 by Sri Prabodh Ranjan Das, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 part 1 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default thereof to undergo R.I. for two months and the appellant Kodo Tatawa was found guilty for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and he was released on furnishing bond of ten thousand with two sureties of the like amount each for the period of one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However appellant Nuneshwar Mahto was not found guilty under Sections 379 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant Kodo Tatawa was also not found...
Vidya Nand Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR246(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The order as contained In Annexure 10 to this writ application is under challenge by the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was informed by the respondent No. 2, the Director General, C.R.P.F. that since the penalty was imposed upon him as a result of disciplinary proceeding in March, 1995, whereas the D.P.C. was held in 1994, hence, his case for promotion is required to be considered by the ensuing D.P.C. having regard to the penalty imposed upon him.2. The petitioner as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) was posted at 102 Batallian, Rapid Action Force, C.R.P.F., Bhubaneshwar (Orissa) from 1993-96.3. The petitioner appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 1993 for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) and he was declared fit for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector.4. In the year 1994, the petitioner was served with Articles of Charges and a Departmental proceeding was initiated against him on 05.03.1994 for misconduct...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »