Jharkhand Court April 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.
Tirth Raj Tiwary Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR74(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. Petitioner joined Indian Army as Sepoy on 15th February, 1957 and retired on 14th May, 1972, after serving fifteen years in Army. Petitioner, thereafter, came to be reengaged in Defence Security Corps on account of his physical fitness on 15th February, 1977 and after serving almost sixteen and half years on this post he was superannuated in June, 1993, on attaining the age of 55 years. This superannuation was on the basis his date of birth, as recorded in the-original service records as 1.7.1938. Grievance of the petitioner is that he has been wrongly retired in the year, 1993 and his pension has also not been fixed taking into consideration the services, rendered by him as Sepoy before his fresh engagement. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 15th February, 1939. He has, accordingly, claimed his pension on the basis of 5th Pay Commission, which admittedly came into effect after his retirement.2. The Union of India has filed a detailed counter affidavi...
Kishore Chouhan and Chandradeo Chouhan Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1861; [2007(4)JCR576(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioners by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing the order dated 5.7.1997 including the entire criminal proceeding pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.E. Case No. 506 of 1996, whereby the learned court below has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act against the petitioners.2. The ground advanced in support of the prayer for quashing the impugned order of cognizance is that it is bad in law as because it was taken beyond the period of limitation.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners explains that as per the prosecution's case, a raid was conducted in the premises of the petitioners on 2.9.1996, in course of which, certain quantities of illicit excise materials was seized, inviting cause for prosecuting the petitioners for the offence under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act. Learned Counsel ...
Omiya Kumar Maji and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR440(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Omiya Kumar Maji and Manoj Kumar Tiwary, claiming themselves to be the local residents of the area, have filed this writ petition seeking for a mandamus directing the respondent authorities not to obstruct the public movement and to use the PCC pubic road by the residents, by constructing the boundary wall in this public road.2. The contention in brief urged by the counsel for the petitioner in support of the said prayer could be summarized as follows:The petitioners are the local residents of Mohalla-Grant Estate, Dumka. Within the ward No. 16 and behind the Civil Surgeon's quarters, Mohalla Grant Estate is situated in plot No. 1997 of the Dumka Town. Contiguous to plot No. 1997 is plot No. 1996 having an area of 27 bighas, out of which 22 bighas were given to Health Department. Mohalla Grant Estate is in existence since British time. There are 30-40 tribal families staying there. All the local residents of the said Mohalla are to reach to the Bus Stand, M...
Sri Bhawani Prasad Srivastava @ Bhawani Lal and ors. Vs. State of Biha ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR225(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings pending against them in C.P. Case No. 345 of 1998 as also the order dated 5.1.1999 passed by Sri D.K. Sharma, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chas, whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance against the petitioners of offences under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code in the aforesaid proceedings.Primary grounds advanced in support of the prayer is that the order of cognizance passed by the learned Court below was without application of judicial mind and without proper appreciation of the nature of the allegations levelled by the complainant/opposite-party No. 2. Learned Counsel submits that on reading the entire allegations. It would transpire that at best, they constitute a dispute of civil nature arising out of breach of agreement and which could attract civil liability, but by no stretch of imagination, can any criminal liability be invoked against the...
Budhiman Oraon Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2019; [2007(4)JCR550(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. The sole appellant, Budhiman Oraon was put on trial to face charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the appellant committed murder of Bandhna Oraon. The trial court having found the appellant guilty convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The case of the prosecution is that on the day of occurrence, i.e. 28.4.1997 Budhiman Oraon, father of the informant Tetla Oraon (P.W.3) had gone to village Deoragani and returned home in the evening at about 6 P.M. and while he was in his courtyard, the appellant Budhiman Oraon (informant's nephew) suddenly came and picked up quarrel with Budhiman Oraon. The informant and others intervened and got the appellant pacified. After some times at about 7 P.M. the appellant again came to the house of the deceased with an axe and started hurling abuses and also struck the door with an axe. Meanwhile, when he saw the deceased, he ...
Prithibi Bhagat and Mundru Baitha Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1606
R.R. Prasad, J.1. Both the appellants, namely, Prithibi Bhagat and Mundru Baitha were put on trial along with accused Chhantu Munda (since died) to face charges under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Arun Singh in furtherance of their common intention and also for causing disappearance of evidence of the offence of the murder with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment. The trial court on finding the appellants guilty on both counts convicted them under Section 302/34 and also under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for an offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence was passed under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The case of the prosecution is that Arun Singh, son of Hareshwar Singh, the informant (P.W.15) was running a shop for selling shoes at Ghaghra. Everyday he used to go to Ghaghra on Motor Cycle and in...
Sahjad Ansari Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2352; 2007CriLJ3086
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. By the judgment dated 12.2.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 526 of 1993, the Special Judge, Hazaribagh, had convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 366, 376, 302/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. While sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life was awarded for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, sentence of ten years for each of the offences under Section 366 IPC and 376 IPC was awarded besides sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 201 IPC. Two other co-accused who were also put on trial, were however acquitted of the charges.The gist of the charge being that on 5.11.1992, the appellant along with two other co-accused persons namely Md. Nijamuddin Ansari and Ramnath Singh had abducted the prosecutrix and committed gang rape on her and thereafter, caused fatal injuries to her resulting in her death.2. The facts of the ca...
Gour Mahato and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3572; [2007(4)JCR556(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21-8-2002 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC IV, Bokaro in Sessions trial No. 269/1990, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty and sentenced them to undergo SI for one month under Section 341, IPC, SI for one year under Section 148, IPC and RI for three years under Section 307, IPC. However, sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the evening of 15-3-87 the informant Subhas Kalindi and Kalipado Kalindi were returning after taking tea to their residents situated in Mauja Ghaghri, P.S. Candan Kiyari, when all the appellants surrounded them and started assaulting mercilessly. According to the informant, Kalipado was assaulted with dagger and axe on his head by appellants Gour Mahto and Sudhir Mahto while others also assaulted both of them with lathi. The incident took place...
T. Mukherjee and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR824]; [2007(4)JCR355(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. As there does not seems to be any factual controversy and the case is based purely on the question of law, the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.2. This writ application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 16,6.2006, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C-2 case No. 2345 of 2006 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 has been taken against the petitioners.3. The facts of the case giving rise this application are that on 20.2.2006 Inspector of Factories, Jamshedpur, Circle 1 got telephonic information that there has been a fatal accident at Sinter Plant-1 within the premises of the factory of M/s. Tata Steel Limited, the Inspector of Factorise visited the place and made enquiry and in course of enquiry came to know that when it was found by the officials of TISCO that layers of b...
Kapil Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR123(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard.2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.5.2002 passed by learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Board's Case No. 25 of 2001 (Annexure-6) and also the order dated 17.8.2001, passed by the learned Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Hazaribagh (respondent No. 3) in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 1/95-96(Annexure-5) and also the order dated 30.9.1995 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ramgarh, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 4) in Land Ceiling case No. 1/94-95.3. Respondent No. 5-Banwari Mahto filed a petition under Section 16(3)(i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the purchase made by the petitioner from respondent No. 6-Umram Thandar and claiming to be co-sharer as well as adjoining raiyat of respondent No. 6. After contest, such petition was allowed and petitioner was directed to re-convey the land in favour of r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »