Jharkhand Court August 2006 Judgments
Pran Yadav and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-31-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1059; [2007(2)JCR13(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. This appeal arises against the judgment dated 27th February, 2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2002, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the Appellant No. 1, Pran Yadav, for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The said appellant, Pran Yadav, was further convicted for the offence under Section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act. However, no separate sentence was passed under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Other Appellant Nos. 2 to 7 were convicted for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, each, for the said offence. They were further convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo ...
Tag this Judgment!Tauquir Alam Khan @ Md. Tauquir Alam Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand and a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC325; [2006(4)JCR241(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, A.C.J. 1. Heard Mr. Ananda Sen learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. S. Akhtar learned standing counsel No. 11.2. In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order daled 20.1.2006 passed by-Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Certificate Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur in Certificate Case No. 71(BL)/2004-05 whereby the objection field by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act has been rejected and distress warrant has been issued for recovery of the certificate dues.3. The facts of the ease lie in a very narrow compass:Petitioner availed loan facility from the respondent-Union Bank of India. When the petitioner failed to liquidate the loan amount together with interest, a certificate proceeding was initiated for recovery of the said dues of the Bank. The Certificate Officer issued notice under Section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act calling upon the petitioner to show-cau...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Annie Kujur (Ekka) Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR537(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order of her termination dated 1.3.1997 (Annexure-8) and for reinstating her with all consequential benefits and for a direction upon respondents No. 1 to 4 not to approve the order of termination.2. Petitioner was an Assistant Teacher. A show cause notice dated 10.12.1996 was issued to her alleging that on 7.12.1996 and again on 8.12.1996 she behaved in a most obstinate manner, picked up quarrel with the principal and other teachers, used abusive language and disturbed the discipline of the school by stripping herself naked, which was a misconduct as per the rules of the School. A copy of the said notice was sent to the District Education Officer etc. Petitioner filed her show cause on 16.12.1996 (Annexure-2). The show cause was not found satisfactory and a departmental proceeding was initiated against her. She was asked to send the name of her representative, if any, and the list of witnesses. The Principal ...
Tag this Judgment!Masood Ahmad Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., the Chairman-cum- ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR244(1)(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Mr. P.K. Prasad, appearing for the petitioner, submits that he has got no instructions to press this application.2. Mr. R. Mukhopadhyay, appearing for the Heavy Engineering Corporation (for short 'H.E.C.') submitted that admittedly the petitioner resigned from the service of the H.E.C. on 28.8.1995 and thus he is not entitled to any amount on account of revision of pay scale and allowances as per Circular No. 5 of 1997 dated 9.10.1997. He further-submitted that several employees, who took voluntary retirement raised similar pleas but the same were rejected by this Court in Maithon Toppo etc. v. H.E.C. 2000 (1) PLJR 1046, and by the Apex Court in H.E.C. Voluntary Retired Employees Welfare Society and Anr. v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited and Ors. 2006 (3) JCR 211 SC.3. In my view, the same analogy which was applied to the cases of persons who voluntarily retired, will apply to the case of this petitioner also who resigned from serviced prior to coming into fo...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR160(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. This appeal arises against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.2.2004 and 27.2.2004 respectively passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 346 of 2001 whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant Santosh Kumar was convicted for the offence under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.2. In short the prosecution case is that in the night of 4.7.2001. the informant Pinki Kumari, aged about 13 years, the daughter of Kale Ram (PW-6) was sleeping in a room. At about 1.00 a.m., the accused/ appellant Santosh Kumar, the next door neighbour entered into her house by scaling the boundary wall in order to commit rape on her. He allegedly entered in her room, opened her Salwar. caught her breast and lifted her legs in order to commit rape but. she woke up and raised alarm. On hearing alarm, her mother Indu Devi (PW-1) and her father Kale Ram (PW-6) rushed...
Tag this Judgment!Kshitish Chandra Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Secretary, High ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR164; [2007(1)JCR158(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner had prayed for several reliefs but Mr. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the main dispute is with regard to the fixing of the admissible date of joining of the petitioner as 17.7.1973.2. According to the petitioner, though he was appointed on the non teaching post of Lab Assistant on 4.8.1959, but as he had requisite qualification, by Notification dated 4/8.12.1969 (Annexure-1), along with others, he was promoted by Bhagalpur University with concurrence of Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC for short) to the teaching post of Demonstrator w.e.f. 1.3.1966. He acquired masters degree on 1.4.1971. By a memo dated 3.8.1972 (Annexure-2) he was sent on lien as lecturer to Godda College for two years by granting him extra-ordinary leave without pay. He joined on the said post on 4.8.1972. While working, as lecturer on temporary basis, he was absorbed permanently on 17.7.1973 as lecturer by the Governi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdeni Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR602(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner has challenged his removal from service on the basis of office order dated 25.1.1997 (Annexure 5).2. According to the petitioner, he worked since July, 1987 on hand receipts and he was regularised as daily wager with effect from 1.7.1987 on 7.1.1988 by the Executive Engineer (respondent No. 6) vide Annexure 2.However, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy me as to under what provision, a person working on daily wages could be regularised with retrospective effect.3. Petitioner's further case is that pursuant to memo No. 650 dated 28.7.1988 (Annexure 3) issued by the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary (respondent No. 3), he was posted in the work charge establishment as driver, but under the impugned order dated 25.11.1997 (Annexure 5) issued by the Executive Engineer, he was removed from service without issuing any letter of termination. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's case is fully covered by the Ful...
Tag this Judgment!Bidiya Uraon Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR125(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. Petitioner was working as a Constable in the Police Department. An F.I.R. was lodged against him by one Satish Kumar, an A.S.I, at about 8.20 P.M. on 23.04.2001 and Chandwa Police Station Case No. 27 of 2001 was registered on 23rd of April, 2001 under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Petitioner was accused of killing one Driver Kailson Tirkey and injuring one Mess Servant Binod Kumar Singh. He was taken into custody and placed under suspension by the Superintendent of Police, Latehar under the District Order No. 1180 of 2001 with effect from 23rd of April, 2001. Later a departmental proceeding was initiated against him being a Departmental Proceeding No. 2 of 2001. On completion of investigations, charge sheet was filed in the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge; Fast Track Court, Latehar by the Police for trial of the petitioner registered as S.T. Case No. 316 of 2001. A show cause notice was issued to the...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotu Ram Mahto, Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR702; [2007(1)JCR459(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Doth the criminal appeals arise out. of the same impugned judgment dated 07/06/2003 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbacl in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2001 and, therefore, they were taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellant Mahanand Mahto of Cr. Appeal No. 467 of 2004 is the husband of the deceased Sudha Devi and two appellants namely Chhotu Ram Mahto and Shanti Devi of Cr. Appeal No. 796 of 2003 are the father and mother of Mahanand Mahto, i.e. the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Sudha Devi.All the aforesaid three appellants were charged for committing the offence under Sections 302, 120B, 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad by his impugned judgment dated 07/06/2003, acquitted the accused persons from the charges under Sections 302, 120B and 201 IPC as well as for the offence un...
Tag this Judgment!Dhananjai Patar Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR51(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. The appellant Dhananjai Patar was put on trial to face charges under Section 304-B/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code along with one Chand Patar (since acquitted) on the allegation that they in furtherance of their common intention committed dowry death of Sushila Devi. On being tried learned 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti while acquitting Chand Patar convicted the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and consequently sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.2. The case of the prosecution is that Sushila Devi, daughter of the informant Nagendra Patar (PW 2) was married to the appellant Dhananjai Patar in the year 1993. After the marriage Sushila Devi stayed in her matrimonial home for about a week and during that period when the informant (PW 2) came to her daughter's matrimonial home he could know that the appellant had gone some where along with one girl and, therefore, he brought his daughter to his house. After on...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »