Jharkhand Court February 2010 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.
Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
D.K. Sinha, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 28.1.2009 passed by the learned Sessions judge, Deoghar in G.R. No. 942 of 2007, arising out of Deoghar P.S. Case No. 392 of 2007 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected. Petitioner was arrayed for the alleged offence under Sections 20/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.2. It was alleged that on 2.9.2007, the informant - Sub Divisional Police Officer, Deoghar on tip off when raided the private bus stand, Deoghar at about 5:00 a.m., petitioner was found in possession of a bag and on its search, about 8 Kg. cannabis (Ganja) was recovered in presence of independent witnesses, though he tried to run any at the sight of the police party.3. The main contention of the petitioner was that no report from the forensic science laboratory was obtained as to whether the material alleged to be sei...
Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Rintu Kumar Choudhary ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
D.K. Sinha, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 19.2.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur by which Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2008 preferred by the petitioner against his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was dismissed and the judgment and order recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 486 of 2006, corresponding to T.R. No. 1126 of 2008 was affirmed and upheld, whereby the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 35,000/- as compensation to the complainant-opposite party No. 2.2. When this criminal revision is taken up for consideration, a joint compromise petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 stating, inter alia, that due to intervention of common friends and well wishers, parties have entered into amicable settlement and pursuant to that, the petitioner has already ...
Sunil Sahu Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
D.K. Sinha, J.1. This Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 17.08.2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in G.R. No. 793 of 2005 arising out of Kamdara P.S. Case No. 38 of 2005 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner claiming his juvenility was rejected. As a matter of fact the plea of juvenility was raised before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla after record was transferred on commitment giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 79 of 2005. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to which an enquiry was conducted under Section 49 of the Act and on determination the petitioner was found to be major above 18 years of age. However, without availing the forum for appeal against the impugned order the petitioner has preferred Criminal Revision under Section 53 of the Act and I find there is no bar in preferring revisio...
Hari Mahto Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
D.K. Sinha, J.1. This Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 15.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2006 by which the petitioner, who claimed to be juvenile was found about 18 years of age at the alleged date of occurrence in an enquiry conducted by the Trial Judge under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and thereby rejected the claim of juvenility of the petitioner.2. The petitioner was facing charge for the alleged offence under Sections 304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code allegedly committing dowry death of his wife.3. The prosecution story in short was that there was allegation of demand of dowry by the petitioner and others by way of gold and T.V. etc. which was communicated to the father-informant when the deceased daughter visited her parental home. She was even driven out earlier that she would not be accepted or allowed to stay at matrimonial home...
Sister Shashi, Daughter of Late Pakki Gabriel Vs. the State of Jharkha ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Sushil Harkauli, J.1. I have heard both sides. On 27.08.2009 the following order was passed in this writ petition:Post retirement benefits are not charity by the State. It is a right earned by the employee upon completing qualifying period of service, and an employee can be deprived of the aforesaid right only if there is an express provision to that effect which must be exist prior to the date on which the benefit has been earned.The stand of the respondent appears to be that because there is no scheme for voluntary retirement for teachers like the petitioner, therefore, post retirement benefits are being denied as she has wrongly obtained voluntary retirement. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed the qualifying period of service.The respondents are given a last opportunity to show any Government order or notification or circular within two weeks, in which there is prohibition that if a teacher, like the petitioner, resigns after completing qualifying period of servi...
Balmati Devi and Sohrai Munda Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Since the issues involved in both the writ applications are identical, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in these writ applications, who were engaged on temporary basis in the Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, Govt. of Jharkhand, have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to regularize their services.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. As it appears from the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners, husband of the petitioner in WPS No. 3936/04 and the father of the petitioner in WPS No. 3943/04, were initially employed on temporary basis under the respondents in the same Department. Upon the employees dying in harness, the present petitioners had applied for grant of compassionate appointment. Their services were engaged initially on muster roll and they were given the impression that their engagement was made on compassionate basis, though subject to the final approval of the District Compassionate Commit...
Sohgi Kumari Vs. State of Jharkhand and
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.12.2008 by which O.P. No. 2 Mantu Yadav Juvenile in conflict with law, has been acquitted for the charge Under Sections 376/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code by the Juvenile Justice Board Koderma in G.R. No. 613 of 2007 corresponding to E.R. No. 28 of 2008.2. The prosecution story in short was that while prosecutrix/complainant Sohgi Kumari was on way to attend the call of nature in the field towards northern side of her home, she was overpowered by the Juvenile Mantu Yadav who caught hold her and ravished on the point of gun after gagging her mouth with the help of towel. Again on 30.1.2007 she was ravished while she had been to her Khalihan to bring paddy straws and similar offence was repeated on 15.2.2007 by the Juvenle/O.P. No. 2, as a consequence the prosecutrix became pregnant. The Juvenile/O.P. No. 2 with the help of the other accused triad to terminate her pregnancy with the consulta...
Md. Farooq @ Raju and Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.3.1993 passed by 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner/Additional Sessions Judge, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 377/34 of 1988 by which the accused appellants have been convicted under Sections 302, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and and each of them have been sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that a written report was lodged by Talat Pravin-PW-7 who is the material aunt of Shama Khatoon, the deceased alleging that on 27.6.1985, it was informed to her that the deceased Shama Khatoon has sustained some burn injuries and she has been admitted in Rajendra Medical College and Hospital,...
Most. Ratni Devi and Pradeep Rai Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Since the issues involved in both these cases are identical, they are disposed of by this common order.2. In both these cases, the claim of the petitioners is for a direction upon the Respondents to pay them the retiral dues, payable in the account of the deceased employees, namely, the husband of the petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 2844 of 2005] and the father of the petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 4173 of 2005].3. The deceased-employees were employed as temporary workers in the work charge Establishment. After having completed more than 25 years of service continuously, they had died/retired. The petitioners have claimed the benefits of the retiral benefits including family pension, Gratuity and another benefits, payable in the account of the deceased-employees on the ground that a decision was taken by the State Government in the concerned Department, pursuant to the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Ram Prasad Singh and Anr. v. The State o...
Ram Nandan JhA. Vs. the State of Jharkhand Ansd ors.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Feb-14-2010
1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 02.12.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No.155 of 2009 by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C.-VI, Ranchi by which the order taking cognizance dated 29.06.2009 passed by Shri M.K.Tripathy, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi for the alleged offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Complaint Case No. 2806 of 2008 was set aside and the Criminal Revision was allowed.2. The prosecution story in short was that the petitioner-complainant Ram Nandan Jha had filed a Complaint Case No.2860 of 2008 before the C.J.M., Ranchi in various Sections of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act stating therein that his son Sudhanshu Kumar Jha was married with Rimjhim Jha i.e the daughter of O.P.No.2 on 11.06.2003 at Bhagalpur. Soon after joining her matrimonial home, Rimjhim Jha started harassing her husband and other in-laws despite all efforts to settle and resolve the matter but...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›