Jharkhand Court June 2005 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.
Surendra Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR439(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by appellant Surendra Mishra against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence both dated 21st February, 2004, passed by the learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, he has held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. However, in view of the aforesaid sentenced, no separate sentence has been awarded under Section 27 of the Arms Act.2. The prosecution, as arisen on the basis of fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of the informant Bidyut Kumar Modi, who was working as car-driver of Chandrashekhar Choubey (deceased) since 1999 and was driving the Ambassador Car of the deceased bearing Registration No. BR-17F-0...
State of Jharkhand Vs. Dasrath Sao and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR152(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Death Reference No. 1 of 2004 arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28th October, 2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 184 of 1998 whereby and where under Shri Subodh Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Palamau at Daltonganj has convicted all the appellants, namely, Dasrath Sao, Lalan Sao, Ramjit Sao, Butter Sao, Suresh Sao and Kailash Sao guilty under Sections 147, 148, 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Nepuri Devi, Mano Devi, Malti Kumari, Lalti Kumari, Kuldeep Sao and Dilip Sao.2. After hearing on the quantum of sentence, all the appellants were sentenced to be hanged by neck till death.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred this appeal, whereas learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau by his letter being No. 242, dated 3.11.2004 has referred death sente...
M.A. Majeed Vs. J.S.E.B. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR89(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pass order for payment of his pension on revised scale with effect from 1.4.1997. The petitioner retired from the services of Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner's case is that the Board had given pay revision benefit to its employees by Notification No. 124/125, dated 18.4.2001. Subsequently, the successor Jharkhand State Electricity Board has also adopted the said recommendation of the Pay Revision Committee. According to the said notification the petitioner is entitled to get his retiral benefits on the basis of the revised pay scale, but the same was not granted. The petitioner filed representation but to no effect. Hence, this writ application has been filed.2. Mr. Sidhartha Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Board fairly admitted the claim of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner's grievance is likely to be redressed withi...
A.P. Arya and ors. and R.T. Singh and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR214]; [2006(1)JCR382(Jhr)]; (2006)IILLJ1089Jhar
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Since mater involved in all the three cases are of same nature, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The case of the petitioners of Cr. M.P. No. 1159 of 2003 is that it is alleged in the prosecution report that in course of inspection of M/s Pariwar Sansthan Plaza Dispensary Complex, Telco Town, Jamshedpur, the petitioners are said to have violated the provisions of Sections 12(1) and 18 as well as Rule 1950 and following violations were found which are given herein-below :(1) As per requirement of Rule 21(4) no register in forms 1 and 2 was kept showing deduction from payment to the labourers on account of penalty and compensation.(2) As per requirement of Rule 22 required information and rates of wages were not displayed at the work site.(3) As per requirement of Rule 25(2) register for overtime was not kept.(4) As per requirement of Rule 26(1) register of wages was not kept.(5) As per requirement of Rule 26(2) no wage slip was given to th...
Jan Mohammad and anr. Vs. Mohammad Kalim and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1814; [2005(3)JCR186(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This second appeal, at the instance of the appellants, is directed against the judgment dated 10.3.1989 and decree dated 29.3.1989 passed in Title Appeal No. 36/88/10/88, whereby and whereunder the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Giridih allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment and decree of the lower Court.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they filed a title partition suit for partition of the property claiming 1/6 share but the defendants appeared and filed written statement. The facts, which emerge from the pleadings of the parties being admitted case, are that Jugal Mian was the common ancestor and he had a son Jodhi Mian @ Mustak Mian and after his death Jodhi Mian inherited his property. Jugal Mian had five daughters but according to custom of family, daughters did not inherit any property. Jodhi Mian had two wives and from one wife he had two sons, who are defendant Nos. 1 and 2 here in the suit and he has four sons and two daughters fro...
Ram Prasad Mistri and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR107(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.5.2003 and 2.5.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Fast Track Court III, Garhwa, in Sessions Trial Case No. 340 of 1992 whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellants for committing the offences under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo RI for a period of 7 years.2. All the three appellants were charged for committing the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for having intentionally causing the death of Kameshwar Mishtri in furtherance of their common intention on 26th Nov. 1991.3. The prosecution story, in short, is that on 26.11.1991 at about 6 a.m. while the informant, Bishuni Mishtri (since dead) was in his house, he heard the sound of lathi blows and then he came out and saw that his son Kameshwar Mishtri was being assaulted with lathi by the appellants. Ram Prasad Mishtri, Shambhu Mishtri and Prabhu Mishtri on his head due to ...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bhatia and Sons and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1703; [2005(4)JCR51(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the judgment dated 28.7.1989 and decree dated 7.8.1989 passed in Money Suit No. 7 of 1972/16 of 1988 whereby and whereunder the learned Sub-ordinate Judge 3rd, Jamshedpur has been pleased to dismiss the suit.2. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that the defendants/respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 at all materials times were partners of M/s. Bhatia & Sons Pvt. Ltd., the defendant/respondent No. 1. The firm was a dealer in oil and other petroleum products under the appellant. In the year 1983 there was an agreement between the appellant and the defendant/respondents No. 1 to 4 that the defendant/respondent No. 1 firm would deliver petroleum products i.e. petrol and diesel from its stock to the defendant/respondent No. 6 in its Department of Atomic Energy according to the requirements of various units of the defendant/ respondent No. 6. It was also agreed that on such supplies being made b...
Mohammad Akhtar Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR2006; [2005(4)JCR109(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo RI for life under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo RI for five years under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Facts briefly stated are that the victim lady namely Smt. Siya Janki Devi was coming from paddy field with a bundle of paddy straw on her head on 3.11.1994 at about 2.30-3.00 p.m. in the day. As soon as she came to Sohara Bahiar, the appellant caught hold of her by sari due to which, bundle on her head fell down. Having guessed the motive of the appellant, the victim lady tried to raise alarm but the appellant threatened her not to raise alarm and he even went to the extent of sayin...
Niraj Kumar and ors. and Anand Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR232(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Both the appeals (Cr. Appeal No. 301 of 1998 and 289 of 1998) are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.9.1998 passed in S.T. No. 122 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj held the appellant, namely, Nazir guilty under Sections 302 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, but both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Other appellant, namely, Anil Kumar @ Pintu, Anand Kumar, Dhiraj Kumar and Niraj Kumar were also found guilty under Sections 302, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and they were also convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, but bot...
Balmiki Prasad Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR361(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order No. 118, dated 22.5.2005 contained in Annexure 8 whereby decision has been taken to realize Rs. 3,97,773 from the petitioner who is a retired Junior Engineer of the Road Construction Department. The said decision has been taken in a proceeding initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The short facts of the case is as follows :2. The petitioner was appointed as a Civil Overseer in the year 1981. He was made a permanent Junior Engineer in the year 1985. The petitioner was transferred to Swarnrekha Road Construction Division, Ghatshila as junior Engineer where he had joined on 11.12.1987. The Division of Swarnrekha Road Command Area, Road Construction Department, Ghatshila was reconstituted and transferred to Road Division, Lohardaga. The petitioner then was transferred to Lohardaga wherefrom he retired on 31.01.2002 on attaining...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »