Jharkhand Court October 2008 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.
Dinesh Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-15-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR136(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the CBI on the matter of bail.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant having been convicted for the offences under Section 120(B) read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471/465 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was awarded maximum sentence for four years for one of the offences on the allegation that the appellant being one of the partners of M/s. Ceplac Pharmaceutical, Ranchi took payment without supplying the medicines to the Animal Husbandry Department and thereby the appellant along with his brother Satendra Kumar, the other partner of the firm in connivance with officials of Animal Husbandry Department and others put the State Exchequer to loss to great extent but the fact is that the appellant had nothing to do with the day-to-day affairs of the ...
Jayatri Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-15-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR854]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the State.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order, as contained in Memo No. 2176 dated 30.9.2003 (Annexure-2), whereby respondent No. 4 the Superintendent of Police, Chatra, has terminated the services of the husband of the petitioner. Further prayer is to direct the respondent to pay death cum retiral benefits to the petitioner, who has succeeded the estate of her husband on his death.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was working as driver constable in police department and while he was in service, he lost his mental balance and the other day, under the same state of mind; the husband of the petitioner took a vehicle, which unfortunately, met with an accident and their upon, a departmental proceeding was initiated but as, the husband of the petitioner was not mentally fit, he was quite oblivious o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›