Kolkata Court June 1995 Judgments
The State of West Bengal Vs. Bejoyesh Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT63(HC)
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.1. Heard the submission of the Ld. P.P. appearing with Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Ghose for the State and Mr. Kamal Bhattacharjee for the O.P, Nos. 1 & 2. considered the materials on record.2. In this application Under Section 107(1) read with Sec. 482 of the Cr. P. C. the State has prayed for transfer of the Sessions Trial No. 303(11) 6f 1992 in connection with Sessions Case No. 47(9)/90 arising out of Kharda P. S. Case No. 216 dated 4.4.39, Under Section 498A/306. of the I.P.C. pending before the court of the Sessions Judge, Barasat, 24 Parganas (North),3. The relevant back-ground of the case is that there was an allegation of torture both physical and mental upon the wife of accused No. 1 Bijoyesh pushing the victim girl to commit suicide. Upon such complaint or F.I.R. before the police, the matter was investigated into and thereafter charge- sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the court of Sessions and ultimately charge was framed against the acc...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Kumar Burman Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ4052
ORDERS. Narayan, J.1. This petition, being one under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 30-4-1991 passed by Shri A.B. Lahiri, Judge, 1st Special Court, Suri, Birbhum in special Court Case No. 6 of 1988 (G.R. No. 408/82), whereby the petitioner's prayer to quash a pending proceeding under Section 409 of the I.P.C. was refused.2. The petitioner Ajit Kumar Burman was sought to be prosecuted along with co-accused Santosh Kumar Roy on the basis of a F.I.R. dated 5-7-1982 issued for the offence under Section 409 of the I.P.C. The petitioner was a godown keeper of a warehouse of M/s. West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation, wherein fertilisers of different kinds were stored. On 26-6-1981, in course of an internal audit of the Corporation it was detected that a stock of ten metric tons of A.N.P. Fertilizer valued at Rs. 22,000/-, approximately, was shown delivered in the stock ledger without any order for such delivery by the depositor and/or...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Ghosh Alias Uttam Kumar Ghosh Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ4079
S. Narayan, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24-4-84 passed by Shri A. K. Maity, Additional Sessions Judge, Nadia, First. Court, whereby the sole appellant Uttam Ghosh was convicted of the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for the said offence. The period of earlier detention, if any, was directed to be set of against the term of imprisonment imposed on him. It may be added here that by the same order some other co-accused persons, namely, Babloo Ghosh, Satya Ghosh, Gopal Ghosh and Nemai Ghosh, who had been jointly charged under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. along with the appellant, were acquitted of the said charge.2. The prosecution case in brief is that in the night between the 4th and 5th May, 1982, the R. G. Party (Resistance Group Party) of village Garuimari, P.S, Chapra, District Nadia was patrolling in the village under the control of the Group Captain Jagannath Ghosh (PW 8). The R.G. Party consis...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Sinha Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT4(HC),99CWN1043
Arun Kumar Datta, J.1. By these two Revisional Applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code), the Petitioner-accused-Arun Kr. Sinha (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) has prayed the Court for quashing of the two relevant Criminal Proceedings, being case Nos. 13 & 14 of 1987, now pending before the learned Judge, Ist Special Court, 24-Paraganas Alipore, arising out of Section 'M' Case No. 79 dated 13-3-84, for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out therein.2. During the hearing, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Milan Mukherjee, had urged only two grounds for quashing of the Proceedings, namely that :1. It was incompetent for the learned Judge to take cognizance of the alleged offence in the absence of Sanction under Section 197 of the Code, since the alleged offencehad allegedly been committed by the petitioner as a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, and2. On the ground of undue delay ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sahadeo Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1995
Reported in: (1995)2CALLT280(HC)
Surya Kumar Tiwari, J.1. This appeal arised put of CO. No. 3223 (W) of 1983 decided that on 9th January, 1992 by Mr. Justice Mahotish Mazumdar.2. The three petitioners (respondents in this appeal) were working as 'rakshaks' in the Railway Protection Force. They were alleged to have committed serious misconduct while performing their duties as 'rakshaks'. They were deputed to an escort goods train No. 733 UP. The train was looted in the way and the petitioners failed to protect the goods transported in the train. It was alleged that the petitioners did not make any efforts to prevent the theft or to apprehend the criminals. It was also alleged that the petitioners connived with the criminals.3. The Assistant Security Officer, Eastern Railway, Kachrapara passed the order of removal (on 7.4.1983) of the petitioners from the service with immediate effect.4. The petitioners have challenged the order of removal on the ground that without holding any departmental inquiry or without affording ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubir Saran JaIn and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1995
Reported in: (1995)2CALLT445(HC),99CWN1150
Arun Kumar Dutta, J.1. By this Revisional Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) the two accused Petitioners Raghubir Saran Jain and Ashok Kr. Jain (hereinafter referred to as Petitioners) have prayed the Court for quashing of the relevant Proceedings, being G.R. Case No. 3574 of 1991, arising out of Case Reference No. CBySCB/RC-12/89 dated 26th September 1989, now pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court at Calcutta, including the Order dated 9th November, 1991 passed therein by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, '(hereinafter referred to as Magistrate) for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out therein. During the hearing of the application the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Dilip Kr. Dutta, had, however, urged the lone ground that it was incompetent for the learned Magistrate, to take cognizance of the alleged offence by his impugned Order dated 9th November, 1991, only on the...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Asoke Kumar Kabra Vs. Smt. Kamala Devi Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT41(HC)
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.1. Heard the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. P. Talukdar appearing with Mr. A.K. Pal & A. K. Adhya and the Ld. Advocate for the O. Ps. 1 & 2 Mr. Sekhar Bose appearing with Mr. Debasish Roy. None is appearing on behalf of the State. Considered the materials on record.2. By the instant revision under section 401/482 of the Cr. P. C. the de-facto complainant has challenged the order dated 16.3.95 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah in Crl. Misc. Case No. 97/95 whereby the Ld. Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 herein and by that order also directed that lathe event of arrest of the accused persons or their surrender before the appropriate authority, they shall be enlarged on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs, 1,00,000/-each with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each on the terms as contained in the said order. In challenging the said order being order No. 11 dated 16.3.95...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubirsaran JaIn and anr. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ4117
ORDERA.K. Dutta, J.1. By this Revisional Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) the two accused petitioners Raghubir Saran Jain and Ashok Kr. Jain (hereinafter referred to as petitioners) have prayed the Court for quashing of the relevant proceedings, being G. R. Case No. 3574 of 1991, arising out of Case Reference No. CBI/SCB/RC-12/89 dated 26th September 1989, now pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court at Calcutta, including the Order dated 9th November, 1991 passed herein by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta, (hereinafter referred to as Magistrate) for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out therein. During the hearing of the application the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Dilip Kr. Dutta, had, however, urged the lone ground that it was incompetent for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the alleged offence by his impugned Order dated 9th November, 1991, only on the b...
Tag this Judgment!Ashoke Kumar Kabra Vs. Smt. Kamala Devi Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ38
ORDERN.K. Bhattacharyya, J.1. Heard the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. P. Talukdar appearing with Mr. A. K. Pal & A.K. Adhya and the Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps. 1 & 2 Mr. Sekhar Bose appearing with Mr. Debasish Roy. None is appearing on behalf of the State. Considered the materials on record.2. By the instant revision Under Sections 401/482 of the Cr. P.C. the de facto complainant has challenged the order dated 16-3-95 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah in Crl. Misc. Case No. 97/95 whereby the Ld. Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 herein and by that order also directed that in the event of arrest of the accused persons or their surrender before the appropriate authority, they shall be enlarged on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each on the terms as contained in the said order. In challenging the said order being order No. 11 dated 16-3-95 in Cr...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bikash Chandra Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Cal67
ORDER1. The Plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance of an Agreement dated 1st Oct. 1994. The Agreement is for sale and delviery ex-pit mouth of the entire Manganese ore and Iron ore from the mine at Ingani Jharan Village in the district of Keonjhar, Orissa.2. The aforesaid Agreement provides the price at which ores were to be sold by the defendant to the plaintiff and also records in Clause 6(a) that the plaintiff has already paid an advance amount of Rs. 15,00,000-00 to the Defendant, the receipt whereof the Defendant acknowledged in the said Clause, which was to be treated as advance against purchase and to be adjusted from out of the sale price payable by the plaintiff to the Defendant. Clause 12 of the said Agreement provides as follows: 'First Party solemnly declares and agrees that he shall not sell or otherwise part with or dispose of any Manganese and Iron ore from the Mine and the Buyer shall be the sole and the only Buyer of all the Manganese and Iron ore from ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »