Jharkhand Court September 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.
Ayub Ansari and Madhav Oraon Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-07-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR75(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The appellants were tried and convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34, IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 341/34, IPC. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have preferred this appeal.2. The case was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of the informant Somra Oraon (PW 1) recorded by the ASI Tej Narain Singh (PW 7) of Chanho Police Station on 14.6.1996 at 8.30 a.m at Mahuatand within Chanho Police Station.The facts of the case, stated briefly, is that on 14.6.1996 at about 6.45 a.m. the deceased Rahman Ansari and his companion Somra Oraon (PW 1) were going towards Bijupara Bus Stand. When they reached at a place called Mahuatand. they were intercepted by these appellants along with one Ibrahim Ansari (co-accused). The informant PW 1 and his companion, namely, the deceased Rahman Ansari got down from their ...
Madan Oraon Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-07-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR242(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. Late father of the petitioner, namely, Charwa Oraon was an employee of the respondent-Company and was working as L.M.D. Helper in Bachra Colliery and died in harness on 28.12.99. Petitioner submitted his application form for compassionate appointment on 30.8.2000. His case has been rejected vide impugned communication dated 24.1.2002 on the ground of delay. It is stated that the application has been preferred beyond six months from the date of death of the deceased-employee and competent authority has not agreed to consider the case for employment. It is alleged that this communication was not served upon the petitioner and he came to know later and thereafter preferred a representation. Mother of the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 24.6.2002 to make a mercy petition. It is stated that she made mercy petition to the Director (Personnel), CCL, Ranchi and also reminders but the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been considered. The...
Md. Liyakat Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-07-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR236(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. The petitioner joined the Respondent No. 2-Municipality as a Labour/Coolie in the year 1967 as alleged by the petitioner and in the year 1968 as per the Reply filed by the Respondents. His Service Book was prepared in the year 1975, wherein, his date of birth was recorded as 6.10.1945. Petitioner was informed vide letter No. 260 dated 13.02.2003 that he is going to retire on 06th of October, 2003 on attaining 58 years of age. It is alleged that on receipt of the aforesaid letter, petitioner came to know that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the Service Book, whereas his correct date of birth is 13.02.1952. He made a representation before the Special Officer, Hazaribagh Municipality for correction of the date of birth on the basis of School Transfer Certificate, wherein his date of birth is recorded as 13.02.1952. On this representation, the Special Officer, Hazaribagh Municipality referred the petitioner's matter to the Civil Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Hazarib...
Renu Jalan and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-07-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR472(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioners herein have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in complaint Case No. 580 of 2004 corresponding to T.R. No. 1166 of 2005 and also the order impugned dated 6.8.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. whereby and whereunder summons were directed to be issued to the petitioners finding a prima facie case for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as against them.2. The brief fact of the prosecution case is that the complainant/opposite party No. 2. Ruchi Jalan, was married to the petitioner No. 3, Sanjay Jalan in December, 1995 at Bombay. On the eve of her marriage, Jewellaries worth Rs. 21,69,900/-were given to the complainant to which she upon arrival at her matrimonial home made over it to the petitioners No. 1 and 2 for its safe custody. The complainant delivered a female chi...
Om Prakash Keshri Vs. Smt. Chintu Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-07-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR520(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 16th September, 2004, passed, by 2nd Additional Munsif, Giridih, in Eviction Suit No. 2 of 1998, whereby, application of the applicant (defendant in the suit) for production of an agreement for sale dated 14th August, 1986 has been rejected. Applicant is a defendant in a suit filed by the respondent for. his eviction under the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. After filing of the pleadings and framing of issues, conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence and when defendant's evidence was being recorded, an application was preferred by the present applicant on 2nd July, 2004, seeking leave of the court to place on record the document dated 14th August, 1986, an agreement of sale allegedly in respect of the suit property. The basis for this application seems to be the statement of the defendant's witness, namely, Mohan Kumar Gahlaut, who claims to be a witness to the agreement. Af...
Nandlal Mahli Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-07-2006
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR412(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The instant Cr. Revision has been directed against the order impugned dated 19.12.05 passed by Shri O.P. Pandey. 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumlain Sessions Trial No. 209/05 arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No. 91/05 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner-accused to recall all the three prosecution witnesses for their cross-examination was rejected.2. The petitioner is the sole accused who is facing trial for the charge under Section 302, IPC for allegedly committing murder of the brother of the informant.3. After framing of charge 3 witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution but they could not be cross-examined on behalf of the defence. The learned Counsel explained that there was no person to take steps on behalf of the petitioner and hence no Counsel to cross-examine the said witnesses could be engaged.4. From the perusal of the impugned order it would be evident that on 28.11.2005 and 29.11.2005 total three witnesses were ...
West Bokaro Colliery (Tisco) Vs. Charna Manjhi and ors.,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR501(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Since all these appeals arose out of common judgment, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. We have heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants at length.3. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 27.6.2005 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby, the compensation amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Judge, has been affirmed and the appeals have been dismissed.4. Mr. Mahto, learned senior counsel assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that admittedly the land was acquired by the appellant-company and no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant being an interested party, in spite of the fact that the appellant intervened in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Judge. Learned Counsel further submitted that some of the most important exhibits filed by the intervener have not been considered.5. From perusal of the judgment, it appears that in the land a...
Damu Devgam Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR601(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard.2. A batch of three writ petitions being WP (S) 5443 of 2005 along with WP IS) No. 1918/2005 and WP (S) No. 6466/ 2005 were heard together and were disposed of by a common order dated 22.3.2006.' In those writ petitions the 'prayer was made lo quash the order dated 3.9.2005 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Executive Engineer. Zila Parishad. Dhanbad, whereby the writ petitioners were directed to be superannuated on account of completion of 58 years of age. Further prayer in those writ petitions were for directions to the Zila Parishad to implement the directions of the State Government dated 26.10.2004 for enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. All the three aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 22.3.2006 holding that the resolution taken by the Government vide memo No. 5826 dated 26.10.2004 enhancing the age of superannuation of the Government's employees from 58 years to 60 years shall also be applicable in the...
Mahabir Mahto and Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-05-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR392(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Both these appeals have been preferred by the appellants named above, against the judgment, and order dated 25.6.2002 and 26.6.2002 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 142 of 2000/175 of 2000 by 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder they were found guilty for the offences under Sections 304-B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and one year for the offence under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default thereof to serve rigorous imprisonment for one year. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Breifly stated the facts leading to these appeals are that deceased Lalo Devi was found dead in a well situated in village Kori, Police Station Burmu In the morning of 29.6.1999. According to informan...
Sargam Rana Vs. Sohar Rana
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-05-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR500(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. This Cr. Revision application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned order dated 11.8.2003 passed by Shri A.D.P. Singh, Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in Maintenance Case No. 134 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the Principal Judge rejected the petition of the petitioner, Sargam Rana, filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure though the minor sons of the petitioner were jointly awarded maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- per month from August, 2002 to be paid by father-opposite party, Sohar Rana till the minor sons of the petitioner attain their majority.2. The brief fact of the case is that a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated on the? application of the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh giving rise to Maintenance Case No. 134 of 2000 against her husband-opposite party claiming a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month being her mainten...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »