Jharkhand Court November 2007 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.
Md. Shamim Vs. State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR965
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.3.2004 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 225 of 2003, whereby the learned court below, while taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against one accused, has refused to take cognizance and to issue process against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4.2. Opposite party No. 2 is the District Transport Officer, Giridih and opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 are the Assistant District Transport Officers, Giridih.3. The petitioner's case is that he had filed a written complaint against Hari Narain Singh and four others stating, inter alia, that the petitioner agreed to purchase a Truck from Hari Narain Singh, who, in collusion with the Transport Officers (O.P. Nos. 2 to 4), produced the documents relating to registration of the Truck No. JH 11B-0402. They also assured the petitioner about the genuineness of the papers rela...
Ram Pada Hembrom and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-20-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR346(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Shri Krishna Murari, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 766 of 1994/14 of 1995 on 15.11.1999 and 19.11.1999 respectively whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/149, 201/149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and three years imprisonment respectively on each count. Both the sentences were directed against each of the appellants to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story as it stands narrated in the fardbeyan of the informant Maheshwar Hembrom (PW 3) recorded on 12.6.1994 at about 12 hours before the Ghatsila Police at the alleged place of occurrence was that on 9.6.1994 he along with his brother Krishna Hembrom (since deceased) while returning to their village at about 7 p.m. after serving notice of panchayat upon Purno Manjhi (not examined) were held up by the ...
Samari Lal Vs. Ramchandra Baitha and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-15-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR1458
D.P. Singh, J.1. The present election petition has been preferred by the petitioner Samari Lal, a defeated candidate during general elections for Jharkhand Assembly held in February, 2005, by which the election of respondent No. 1, Ramchandra Baitha, sitting MLA from Kanke Constituency, has been challenged.2. The election petition was preferred within time on 12.4.2005 and admitted for hearing on merit by order dated 9.2.2007. Then notices were issued to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who appeared on different dates and filed written statements to contest the present election petition. Respondent No. 1 his filed written statement on 17.4.2007 at Flag G. Before the written statement being filed, a petition under Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed on 9.4.2007 at Flag F. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the written statement and recriminatory petition denying the facts stated in the written statement as well as rec...
Dr. Shambhu Sharan Lall Vs. State of Jharkhand Through C.B.i.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR1416
Dilip Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.9.2006 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, 8th -cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 4(A)/86(D) whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted under Section 161 I.P.C. and Sections 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, accordingly, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. Besides his substantive sentence for imprisonment under the P.C. Act, fine of Rs. 500/- was awarded to him with default stipulation to serve out rigorous imprisonment for one month and both the sentences recorded against him were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story in brief was that the complainant Rohan Manjhi presented a written report to the S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad narrating therein that he was working as loader in Lohapatti Colliery. On 4.1.86 he sustained injuries in his leg while he was on duty and he informed the Shift Incharge abou...
Chinta Sinku Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR943; 2008CriLJ2192
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.09.2003, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. II, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 07 of 2002, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.2. The case against the appellant was registered on the basis of the Fard Beyan of the prosecutrix (P.W. 9), recorded on 20.09.2001, at 9:00 A.M., at Kumardungi Police Station, for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. The appellant is named in the F.I.R. As per the Fard Beyan of the informant, who is a married lady, aged 20 years, she used to reside in the house of her husband's brother-in-law, Manki Sinku at village Barusal Tola Maranda, since her husband was away, in course of his employment. It is alleged that in the afternoon of 08.09.2001, (Saturday), she was reclining on a cot i...
Yogendra Kumar Ojha, Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR955
DGR Patnaik, J.1. In these three appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 23.3.2007 passed by the Addl. judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 691 of 1997 whereby two of the appellants namely Yogendra Kumar Ojha and Anil Kumar Ojha alias Raju Ojha have been convicted for offences under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act and sentenced to imprisonment for eight years and line of rupees 20,000/- each for the said offence, while the appellant Jitendra Bohra was convicted for the offence under Section 25(1A) read with Section 35 of the Arms Act and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and fine of rupees 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand).2. The appellants along with one co-convict Surendra Singh @ Surendra Singh Bangali were charged with and put on trial for offences under Section 25(1A) and Section 35 of the Arms Act and Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against the appellants was registered on 24.6.1997 at 5.00 p.m. on...
Kuldeep Soreng, Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-07-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1972
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The appellants have preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 24.04.2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2002, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 366A and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and also against the order of sentence to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each though no separate sentence was awarded to them for the offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C.2. The case against the appellants was registered at the Kurdeg Police Station on 07.11.2001 on the basis of a written report submitted by the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) alleging, therein that on the night of 04.11.2001 (Sunday) at about 10 P.M., she was alone in her house. It was the occasion of 'Sohrai' festival. Her father had gone to a relative's house and other members of the family were also away from house and had gone to...
Ram Kishan Agarwala Vs. Ramawatar Agarwalla and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-07-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR324(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Both these appeals have been filed by the defendants in two separate sets against a common judgment. First Appeal No. 61 of 1996 by the appellant Ram Kishan Agarwala (defendant No. 2) has been filed against the judgment dated 4.1.1996 and 19.11996 passed by the Sub Judge 2nd Dhanbad in Title (Partition) Suit No. 44 of 1994 whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff respondents and against the defendants 1 to 4, 5 to 7 and 13 to 14 on contest and without contest against the other defendants declaring the plaintiffs' 1/4th share in the properties mentioned in items no 1 to 4 of the schedule to the plaint.First Appeal No. 63 of 1996R has been filed by another set of defendants against the same judgment and decree of the leaned court below. A cross objection in this appeal has been filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiffs/respondents against part of the impugned judgment whereby the plaintiffs' claim for partition of it...
China Mandal, Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-07-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR300(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Shay J.1. Common question on similar facts are involved in both the writ petitions and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of WP(C) No. 2222 OF 2005 are as follows:It appears that Stone Mining Lease over two Acres of land situating on Plot Nos. 649, 650, 652, 653 and 654 in Mouza Kulkulidanga in the District of Durnka was granted in favour of the petitioner for 5 years in the year 1994 which was subsequently renewed for 10 years i.e. for the period 11.09.1999 to 11.09.2009. The Deputy Commissioner, Durnka, by order dated 29.05.2004, cancelled the mining lease of the petitioner which according to the petitioner, is bad as it was done without initiating any proceedings as contemplated under Section 4(1) or Section 4A(3) and Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and Rules 40(1) and of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972.The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before...
Employers in Relation to the Management of Bhagabandh Colliery of P.B. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR453
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The Bharat Coking Coal Limited, the employer has filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, dated 07.12.1993 passed in favour of the workmen, who are members of the Union, the respondent No. 2, by directing the management to regularize the workmen in Category I after holding that their job is permanent in nature.2. The short facts, are as follows:(i) The Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Union, the 2nd respondent herein, on behalf of the workmen, the members of the Union, sent a letter dated 06.09.1980 raising an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad raising the question of unjustified denial to regularize the workmen Upendra Kumar and 26 others sweeping, cleaning Mazdoors, who are working in the Company for number of years.(ii) On the basis of the letter, after inquiry, the issue was referred by the Central Government to the Tribunal with the following issue:Whether Shri Upe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »