Patna Court January 2002 Judgments
Most. Sudama Devi and ors. Vs. Himanshu Shekhar Jha and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. This Misc. Appeal is directed against the judgment in reversal dated 8th April, 1999 passed in Title Appeal No. 89 of 1994 arising out of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 135 of 1987, by learned Sub-Judge II, Patna.2. The appellants are the plaintiffs. The suit was filed for declaration of title of the plaintiffs over the suit land fully described in Scheduled I of the plaint and non-title of the defendants and further for holding that the sale-deed dated 15-10-1986 executed by defendant 1st party in favour of defendant 2nd party is illegal, unauthorised and without any title and that the defendant 2nd party has not acquired any title and their possession over the suit land is that of a trespasser. Further prayer is for passing a decree for recovery of possession and mesne profit and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants permanently from making any construction over the suit land.3. Plaintiff-appellants succeeded in getting ...
Tag this Judgment!Surat Lal Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 15-5-2000 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Cr. Appeal No. 138/61 of 1991/1999 confirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 17-9-91 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (Railway Magistrate), Samastipur, in RPF case No. 42/81, Trial No, 472/91. The revisionist was convicted for an offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.2. It has been submitted by the revisionist's lawyer that admittedly certain railway properties were recovered from his railway quarter, but the properties were entrusted to him for being used in replacement of the railway lines at Ghoghardiha railway station. He was mats of the labourers and so he was expected to be in possession of those articles, which were entrusted to him by P.W.I, at the relevant time. Some P.Ws. admitted that there was no store at the railway station, Ghoghardiha and as he was entrusted with the property as...
Tag this Judgment!Tirpan Singh and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing of a portion of the order dated 30-3-2001 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ara, in S. Tr. No. 375/98 whereby the application filed by the accused-personss-petitioners dated 29-3-2001 to examine the witnesses shown as prosecution witnesses in the charge-sheet and other official witnesses as Court witnesses has been rejected.2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that on the basis of a report given by one Hare Kishqre Singh, Udwantpur P.S. Case No. 62/98, dated 6-4-1998 under Section 302/34, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the petitioners. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet and in the charge-sheet the names of the witnesses were also given which included Krishna Singh, Ramji Singh, Rambalak Yadav, Jivnandan Singh and Rambadan Yadav. During the course of trial the prosecution did not examine the aforesaid witnesses b...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Devi JaIn Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21st August 1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kishanganj in Title Appeal No. 21 of 1993 whereby the judgment of the trial Court passed in Title Appeal No. 197 of 1987 was set aside and the suit was remanded to the lower Court for a fresh decision after giving opportunity to the plaintiff-appellant to lead fresh evidence and also an opportunity was given to the defendant-respondents to file written statement.2. It has been submitted by the appellant's lawyer that the learned appellate Court was free to decide the appeal on the evidence already or the record in stead of remanding it to the lower Court and moreover, no opportunity should have been given to the defendant-respondents to file W.S. because already sufficient time was granted to it in the trial Court itself.3. On perusal of the remand order of the appellate Court, I find that it was held and observed that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to pr...
Tag this Judgment!Sachchidanand Modi Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the 2002 petitioner and learned counsel for the State.2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the entire criminal proceeding pending in the Court of Special Judge, E.C. Act Jamui arising out of Jamui P.S. Case No. 77/99. The allegation against the petitioner is violating of Section 7 of the E.G. Act on the ground that on 8th June, 1999 from the godown of the petitioner 109 quintals of wheat and 1 quintals of sugar was recovered and the petitioner had no licence for trading in these articles.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure-2 an order of this Court in another similar case where this Court noticed that storage limit for wheat and rice has been abolished by a notification of the Central Government. Details of such notification are also mentioned in another judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Kiran Bala v. State of Bihar 1996 (i) Pat LJR 730.4. So far as sugar is concerned, it has been submitted that as per no...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Narayan Yadav Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.1. Both the writ applications have been preferred by one and the same person.2. Bhagalpur Station ferry was given, on lease, to the petitioner for collection of toll for three years from 18-6-2001. During the subsistence of the lease, State of Bihar has constructed a bridge over the river Ganga and according to the petitioner the bridge falls and forms part of Bhagalpur Station Ferry. It is the stand of the petitioner that although the bridge in question was not inaugurated and opened 'for traffic, people have started using the same and on account of the diversion of the traffic petitioner is unable to collect the tolls. The petitioner, accordingly, filedC.W.J.C. No. 9537 of 2001, inter alia, praying to facilitate collection of toll from the bridge as the same falls within Bhagalpur Station Ferry.3. Further stand of the petitioner is that on 23-7-2001 the said bridge has been formally inaugurateed and opened to traffic but without any barrier and as such ...
Tag this Judgment!The Gopalganj Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Tripathi and a ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 6-7-1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopaiganj, in G.R. Case No. 703/75, Trial No. 404/99.2. The Gopaiganj Central Co-operative Bank is the revisionist before this Court. Opposite Party No. 1 of this revision, Dinesh Tripathi, was the accused before the trial Court upon the allegation that during the relevant period, he was an Assistant in the Sasamusa branch of Central Co-operative Bank, Gopaiganj. The Manager of the aforesaid Bank was Ambika Rai. The accused Dinesh Tripathi had received 10 volumes of chequebooks on 30-12-1974. He handed over one volume of cheque book to Birendra Narain Singh, the Manager of Sasamusa Co-operative Development and Sugarcane sale and purchase Association. However, during 1-2-1975 to 26-3-1975 Dinesh Tripathi withdrew a total amount of Rs. 51,035/- on the cheque Nos. 3312, 3314, 3318 and 3320 and misappropriated the same, but withdrawal was shown in the name of Birendra...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad Sah Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
S.N. Pathak, J.1. The revision is directed against the judgment rendered by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia, in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1994 confirming the judgment of the trail Court dated 4-5-1994 passed by S.D.J.M., Araria, in G.R. Case No. 821/90, Trial No. 557 of 1994. The revisionist was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A, IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for four months for the offence under Section 279, IPC and two years for the offence under Section 304A, IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. It has been submitted by the revisionist's lawyer that PW 1, who was the rickshaw puller, said that he was unable to say the number of the bus which dashed against his rickshaw. PW 5, Yogendra Rishi, also failed to say whether he was knocked down by a bus or a truck. PW 1 said that he learnt the bus number from PW4, Binod Roy, who did not give the bus number in his evidence in Court. So, the identification of the revisionist is not fixed by the evid...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
S.N. Jha, J.1. This writ petition relates to appointment to the Bihar Judicial Service on the basis of the 25th Judicial Service Examination. The relevant facts are as follows.2. On 18.9.1999 the Bihar Public Service Commission (in short the Commission') issued, advertisement (Advt. No. 18/99) for appointment of 152 Munsifs in the Bihar Judicial Service. Written test was held between 24.1.2000 and 31.1.2000. On 29.6.2000 the result of 352 candidates successful at the written test was published. The viva-voce test was held between 24.7.2000 and 3.8.2000. On 4.8.2000 the final result of 137 successful candidates was published. This comprised of 114 candidates in the general category, 21 in the scheduled caste category and 2 in the scheduled tribe category. It may be mentioned here that 15 vacancies were earmarked for the Scheduled Tribe candidates against which only two candidates could make grade while the case of one candidate was kept pending. Thus 12vacancies in the Scheduled Tribe...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 3-12-1999 passed in Misc. Case No. 16/99, whereby the crops on the disputed lands were attached and the Deputy Collector was directed to sell the crops and deposit the sale proceeds in the treasury.2. It has been submitted by the 'revisionists' lawyer that several bataidari cases as also title suits were fought between the parties and all those cases were decided in favour of the revisionists. Writs were also filed by both the parties against the orders passed by the lower Courts and all these writs were decided in favour of the revisionists. So, the claim of the opposite party of this revision of bataidari right over the disputed lands were set at rest. Subsequently, the opposite parties filed fresh bataidari cases and by order dated 24-2-1996 these cases were instituted, but this Court stayed the operation of the order dated 24-2-1996 by order dated 7-11-1996 in CWJC No. 6280/96. Thereafter, the opposite party filed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »