Kolkata Court May 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.
Md. AmiruddIn Sk. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-2010
I.P. Mukerji, J.1. Dealership of a fair price shop is granted under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance & Control) Order, 2003. One Pranab Kumar Das was proposed to be appointed as such fair price dealer in Ratanpur village in West Bengal. The writ petitioner challenged such proposed appointment by instituting a writ application in this Court being W.P. No. 26648(W) of 2008, Md. Amiruddin Sk. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. It was alleged in the writ petition that the proposed appointee had some disqualification. That writ application was taken up for final hearing before Aniruddha Bose, J. on 19th November 2008. He disposed it of by directing the District Controller (Food and Supplies), District of Murshidabad to consider the case of the writ petitioner upon hearing the parties. That order was received by the said District Controller on 22nd December 2008. By a notice dated 1st January 2009 he asked the writ petitioner to appear in his chamber on 14th January ...
Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raju Sharma and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The present petitioners have been facing their trial of a charge under Sections 307/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Sealdah. During the trial initially the petitioners were defended by a lawyer of their own choice and by July 8, 2009 the examination of total five prosecution witnesses was concluded. Thereafter, on August 26, 2009 the learned defence Counsel moved an application before the Trial Court expressing his desire to retire from the case. Upon such application being moved the Trial Court allowed the prayer of the defence counsel and he was discharged. While making such order the Learned Trial Court engaged one Mr. P. Saha, a lawyer from the State Panel to defend the accuseds in the trial. However, on the very next day, i.e., on August 27, 2009 on behalf of the accused persons an application was moved expressing their desire to engage a new lawyer of their choice to defend them during the ...
Sri Hemanta Mondal and ors. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have approached for quashing of the charge-sheet submitted against them under Sections 498A/306/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground, the evidentiary materials collected by the police during the investigation no offence has been made out and on the further ground admittedly, the FIR was lodged by mistake of facts.It may be noted that initially the petitioner moved for quashing of the FIR and thereafter by filing a supplementary affidavit made the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet which was submitted in the meantime.2. Mr. Anil Chattopadhyay, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently urged before this Court there is no materials justifying submission of the charge-sheet for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code, when according to the Autopsy Surgeon, the death was accidental in nature. He further submitted in view of th...
Panskura Cold Storage, Now, Panskura Cold Storage Private Limited and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. In this criminal revision the petitioner, who has been facing his trial in connection with an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have challenged an order whereby the Trial Court directed de novo trial.2. Heard the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the opposite party No. 1, the complainant and the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State.3. It appears that during the course of trial the complainant tendered his evidence on affidavit, thereafter he was cross-examined and then discharged. Soon thereafter the Learned Magistrate was transferred and his office was succeeded by another Learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the succeeding Magistrate on the prayer of the complainant directed for de-novo trial. As the law stands all offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are triable by a Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate, in a summary way. It...
Gobinda Chandra Das Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-2010
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioner in this Article 226 petition dated August 2, 2006 is questioning the decision of the Collector, Burdwan dated April 10, 2006, Annexure P6 at p.33, rejecting his application for appointing his son as a stamp vendor on compassionate ground.2. The decision of the collector dated April 10, 2006 is quoted below:With reference to his application dt.22-2-06 this is to inform him that in the light of the clarification given in Finance Revenue Department, Government of West Bengal's No. 86(2)F.T.dt.18.1.2006/F.T/O/IM-22/OO stamp (Demand 3) the Government has decided not to appoint any new stamp vendor even on compassionate ground.3. The petitioner is a stamp vendor. He has been working under licence No. 12 of 1973-1974 in 'S.R's office, Burdwan'. He has been suffering from illness. Under the circumstances, on February 22, 2006 he applied to the Collector, Burdwan for appointing his son as a stamp vendor on compassionate ground. By the impugned decision ...
Swarup Narayan Chowdhury Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The petitioner has moved this criminal revision for quashing of a First Information Report relating to an offence punishable under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act.2. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that although the plot of land in question on which the Poppy Plants were found to be cultivated never belong to him still the Investigating Agency falsely implicated him in the impugned criminal case by alleging that he is the owner in respect thereof. In support of his contention the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Annexure 'P-1', the search report and pointed out that according to the Investigating Agency the Poppy Plants were found cultivated in Plot No. 276, situated within the Mouza Sahebnagar, Block Tehatta - II, P.S. Tehatta, Nadia, then by drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure 'P-2', the records of right he submitted the land comprised in Plot No....
Smt. Sakti Rani Dey Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The present petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with Pandua Police Station Case No. 206 of 2009 under Sections 135(1)(b)/135(1)(c) of the Electricity Act moved an application for anticipatory bail before this Hon'ble High Court. This Hon'ble High Court allowed such prayer of anticipatory bail by making the following orders;Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner would be admitted on bail upon furnishing sufficient sureties on the following conditions that:i) the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required.ii) no direct or indirect threat or any inducement would be made to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.The petitioner must submit to the jurisdiction of the Regular Court within a period of four weeks.Upon her surrender before the learned Court below, the learned Mag...
Buddhadeb Chandra and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. Abhijit Kumar Adhya, Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. Joy Sengupta, Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State. Perused the impugned order and other materials on record.2. The subject matter of challenge in the instant criminal revision is an order whereby the Trial Court rejected the petitioners' prayer for re-examination on recall of five prosecution witnesses, viz., P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 5, P.W. 8 and P.W. 14. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioners have been facing their trial for offence punishable under Sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after the 313 examination of the accuseds was over, the application under Section 311 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure was moved for recalling of those witnesses for their re-examination to suggest that the victim, Mousumi, committed suicide as she was unable to conceive. It further appears that those witnesses were examined at len...
Tarun Khandait Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The petitioner who happened to be the defacto-complainant of the Ketugram Police Station Case No. 6 of 2007, now being pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katwa being G.R. Case No. 14 of 2007, under Sections 147/148/149/323/325 of the Indian Penal Code has moved this Court against an order passed in connection therewith, whereby the petitioner's prayer for further investigation of the case has been rejected.2. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before this Court that initially the FIR was recorded for an offence punishable under Sections 147/148/149/323/325/307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, after investigation police has submitted chare-sheet under Sections 147/148/149/323/325 of the Indian Penal Code. The entire grievance of the petitioner is this that although a case for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out still police has not submitted charge-sheet...
Tapan Kr. Das Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The present petitioner was tried and was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said order of conviction was challenged before the appellate Court and the appellate Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence and directed the trial Court to proceed with the trial de novo from the stage of 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the course of such trial, the petitioner moved an application praying for permission to contradict the witnesses with reference to their statement recorded during the earlier trial.However, the learned trial Court rejected the said application and when the said order was challenged before the Sessions Court, the Session Court affirmed the said order, hence this criminal revision.2. Admittedly, this is a second revision and in view of clear prohibition contained in Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no revision against the same can be entertained unless it is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »