Jharkhand Court November 2011 Judgments

Md. Hafiz Akhtar Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others

Court: Jharkhand

Reported in: 2012CrLJ269(NOC)

Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State and counsel for the O.P. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the complaint petition no case is made out under Section 498A I.P.C. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already divorced O.P.no.2, therefore, O.P.no.2 can not claim herself as his wife. Counsel for the O.P.no.2 has filed counter affidavit in this case. He has pointed out that it is very specifically mentioned in the complaint petition and also in the statement made on oath by her that her husband assaulted her number of times. Not only this , he also demanded a huge amount as dowry. Further more, the O.P.no.2 has also pointed out that in the case filed by the O.P.no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has filed his show cause stating therein “ That the statements made by the petitioner in her application affecting the conduct, character and means of the respondent are absolutely untrue. The only true statement is that the responde...

Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Lallan Singh Vs. the Central Bureau of Investigat ...

Court: Jharkhand

Reported in: 2012CrLJ259(NOC)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking direction against the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to do its duty and make bonafide efforts to make expeditious trial of all the cases of conspiracy involving political leaders and senior bureaucrats in the cases known as “Fodder Scam Cases” in the State of Jharkhand. Further direction has been sought that State of Jharkhand be directed to constitute adequate CBI Courts to deal with such cases of Fodder Scam and it has also been prayed that State of Jharkhand should ensure regular functioning of the Special CBI Courts and expedite the trial in Fodder Scam Cases being case Nos. RC20(A)/96-Pat, RC38(A)/96-Pat, RC47(A)/96-Pat, RC64(A)/96-Pat, RC68(A)/96-Pat and RC63(A)/96-Pat. 2. Before approaching this Court, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the same relief by submitting Writ Petition (Civil) No. 316 of 2011 which has been permitted to be withdrawn by the writ petitioner vide o...

Balendra Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand (Through Vigilance)

Court: Jharkhand

Jaya Roy, J. 1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2006, passed by the IXth Additional Judicial Commissioner- cum- Special Judge(Vigilance) at Ranchi, in Spl. Case No.04 of 1997, arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.35 of 1997, whereby he has convicted the appellant under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years together with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo a further period of three months imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on the written report of Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha, the then Superintendent of Police Vigilance wherein he has stated that a preliminary inquiry was conducted by Vigilance Bureau of Cabinet Vigilance, Bihar and it was found that Balendra Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police who was posted as Enforcement Officer at Jamshedpur, seized Truck No.BR-16B-7689 on 6.12.94 and...

Shankar Das and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

Reported in: 2012CrLJ340(NOC)

1. Both these Criminal Appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.1.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1996 whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offences punishable under sections 326/452/323 IPC and accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of rupees ten thousand each and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for one year under section 326 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of rupees one thousand each and in default, simple imprisonment for two months under section 452 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 323 IPC. The appellant namely Angrej Das has also been held guilty under section 307 IPC, apart from sections 326/452/323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of rupees twenty thousand and in default of payment, t...

Raj Kumar Barnwal Vs. State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

Reported in: 2012CrLJ302(NOC)

Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State and counsel for the informant. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the informant and Raj Kumar Barnwal(present petitioner) are the Directors of a Company, namely, Agro Fresh Flour Mill and they have some dispute between them regarding their business concerned. He has further submitted that the entire allegation made in the F.I.R seems to be false and concocted. The contents of the F.I.R show that the petitioner asked the informant to come to Dhanbad and to outside the Dhanbad Railway Station. When the informant reached there, the petitioner and two other co-accused came there and handed over a cheque of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the informant. Thereafter, all of them boarded in a passenger train and as soon as the train departed from Mahua Station, the petitioner took the informant to a corner near the toilot and the co-accused, namely, Ramesh Chandra along with two other unknown people came and tried to strangulate the informan...

Abul Mian and Others Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

1. All these three appeals have arisen out of common judgment and sentence dated 18.07.2001 passed in Sessions Case No.190 of 1994 and Sessions Case No.15 of 1998 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka convicting the appellants under Section 396 I.P.C. and sentencing appellant Abul Mian and Badruddin Mian to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and appellant Moti Mian to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 2. All the three appeals were heard together. Both the aforesaid Sessions Trials were amalgamated. Altogether 13 witnesses were examined in Sessions Trial No.190 of 1994 and altogether 8 witnesses were examined in Sessions Trial No.15 of 1998. Out of all the examined witnesses some witnesses were common. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that in the night of 21/22.06.1993 the informant Hatim Ansari (deceased) was sleeping in his house along with his wife. He woke up by the sound of jumping of somebody in his house by scaling boundary wall. The person who trespassed opene...

Dr. Ashok Kumar Dixit and Another Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

Reported in: 2012CrLJ260(NOC)

This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.01.2008 whereby learned C.J.M. Ist class, Dhanbad took cognizance against the petitioners under section 279/304A/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with C.P.Case no.935/2006. It is submitted by Sri M.B.Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners that in the instant case, admittedly, occurrence took place on 01.04.2004, whereas cognizance under sections 279 and 304A I.P.C. was taken on 19.01.2008 i.e. after three years from the date occurrence. He submits that as per section 468(2) of the Cr.P.C. , it is imperative for the Magistrate to take cognizance within three years from the date of occurrence. Accordingly, he submits that the order of cognizance, bad in law, therefore, cannot be sustained. On the other hand, Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for O.P.No.2, submitted that in the instant case, a police case instituted and after investigation police submitted Final Form in favour of petitioners on 24.05.2005, therea...