Jharkhand Court January 2006 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.
Muneshwar Singh Vs. Central Coalfields Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR305(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The only question that falls for consideration in this writ application is as to whether the continuance of departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner is liable to be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against him.2. The petitioner is working as Estate Manager in the respondents-C.C.L. He has been implicated in a criminal case instituted under Section 13(ii) read with 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, being Case No. RC 3(A) of 2004. It is contended by the petitioner that the C.B.I, submitted charge-sheet and charges were framed in the criminal case on 28.9.2004. Thereafter on 27.5.2005 the respondents issued memorandum along with articles of charges in a departmental proceeding. The petitioner filed representation for keeping the proceeding in abeyance on the ground that on the same set of allegations criminal case against him is going on. It is alleged that the representation of the petitioner was not conside...
Guddu Shukla @ Sant Gyan Shukla and Altaf HussaIn Vs. State of Jharkha ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-02-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1883; [2006(2)JCR73(Jhr)]
ORDERN. Dhinakar, C.J.1. The petitioner, Guddu Shukla @ Sant Gyan Shukla, in Cr. Revision No. 1068/2005, and the petitioner, Altaf Hussain, in Cr. Revision No. 1078/2005, filed appeals before the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Palamau, in Cr. Appeal No. 22 of 2003 and Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 2003 respectively, challenging their conviction under Section 33 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, for which they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under each count. The appellate Court, while setting aside the conviction under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, confirmed the conviction of both the petitioners under Section 42 of the said Act and aggrieved by the said order of conviction, the present revision applications have been filed,2. Since both the revision applications arise out of the common trial, being Trial No. 430/2003, the following common order is passed.3. The case against the petitioners is that on 5.00 a.m. on 13.9.1998, PW 2, the forest guard, Banaudhi Sao, found the petitione...
Bikesh Shukla @ Bikesh Kumar Shukla and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-02-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR105(Jhr)]
ORDERN. Dhinakar, C.J.1. The petitioners who were the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 92/2004, which was filed before the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge. Palamau, were tried before the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 323 and 325, IPC who. after trial, found them guilty and sentenced them to undergo RI under Section 323, IPC for six months and two years under Section 325, IPC with a direction that both the sentences would run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution against the petitioners is that at 6,00 a.m. on 7.12.1995, they caused injuries on PWs 1, 2 and 5 by assaulting them, on account of which PWs 1 and 5 suffered simple injuries and PW 2 suffered grievous injuries. A complaint was given at the Chainpur police station by PW 5. The witnesses who suffered, were treated by PW 3, who issued wound certificates being Ext. 1,1/1 and 1/2 respectively for the injuries found on PWs 1, 2 and 5.3. Learned counsel appearing for the 'petitioners submits that though, according to the prose...
Yogendra Singh @ Radhey Shyam Singh and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-02-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1884; [2006(1)JCR408(Jhr)]
ORDERN. Dhinakar, CJ.1. The petitioners, Yogendra Singh @ Radhey Shyam Singh and Sudama Singh, were appellants in Cr. Appeal Nos. 45 of 2005 and 33 of 2005 respectively before the Sessions Judge, Gumla and the said appeals were filed against the judgment and conviction passed against them by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Gumla under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act. The trial Court on finding the petitioners guilty, sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 25(1-B)(a) and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 26 of the Arms Act.2. The allegation against them is that at 6 p.m. on 28.2.2002 when PW 4, the Investigating Officer, was at Turbul market found the petitioner coming in a motorcycle and on seeing the police party tried to escape from the police but were overpowered and caught. When the police officer, PW 4, searched the person of these two petitioners, he found 12 Bore cartridge in the pocket of Sud...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›