Patna Court February 2002 Judgments

Most. Bimla Devi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

B.N.P. Singh, J. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were prosecuted on behest of appellant for offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code on accusation that pursuant to negotiation between the parties for execution of a deed of exchange of land, the details of which are wanting, when Most. Bimla Devi went to Registration Office at Barh in the company of her brother Ramdeo Singh P.W. 5, though a deed was scribed and her thumb impression was secured on them, she was not taken before Registrar for execution of the deed and eventually when she came back to her in-laws house, she was on being maltreated by them, made enquiries and on getting certified copy of the deed, was surprised to find that, instead of deed of exchange, a deed of gift purported to have been executed by her was on the record. The petition of complaint filed by the appellant was firstly dismissed but eventually on another petition having been filed, judicial process was set in motion, pursuant to which tria...

Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Brajendra Nath Sinha

Court: Patna

B.N.P. Singh, J. 1. The respondent, who happens to be the proprietor of J.P.S. Plastic, A 8 Phase II, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, was prosecuted on behest of the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation. Patna, on accusation that the respondent had not been submitting contribution card, duly affixed with stamps for the contributing period ending on September 27, 1980 in Set B, within the time limit, which was due on November 8, 1980, as required under Sections 39, 40 and 43 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, read with regulation 26 of the E.S.I. (General) Regulations, 1950. After requisite sanction was obtained, the trial commenced against the respondent.2. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined three witnesses and also placed on record documents. The defence too adduced one witness and placed on record a register of the year commencing from 1977-1986 which bears inspection note that the establishment of the respondent was not covered u...

Upendra Mahto Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Prabhat Kumar Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal by Upendra Mahto who was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 1989 under judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Nawadah, dated 18-9-1989 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.2. In this appeal this Court had delivered judgment on 18-12-2000 dismissing the appeal in absence of learned Counsel for the appellant, as when the appeal was first taken up for hearing on 13-12-2000, no one on behalf of the appellant had appeared and the case was adjourned to 18-12-2000 when also none appeared on behalf of the appellant, and then appeal was taken up for hearing and learned Additional Public Prosecutor was heard and this Court, after going through the entire case record, had recorded the judgment as aforesaid.3. It appears that thereafter this matter was heard in Cr. Appeal No. 865 of 2001 by the Apex Court in which by order dated 17-8-2001, the appeal was allowed and the case was...

Amarendra Kumar amar @ Dr. Amar Vs. Sharad Yadav

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2002(1)BLJR690

1. This is an order on the application filed by the sole respondent under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) read with Order VII, Rule 11 and Order VI, Rule 16, CPC and Sections 81, 82, 83 and 87 of the Representation of People Act (in short 'the Act') raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of election petition and reply to this petition filed by petitioner.2. The sole respondent in the application under consideration has stated that he has not been supplied with true copy of election petition because the copy served on him does not contain page Nos. 36 and 71- although the original election petition contains these pages and besides this, various pages in the copy of election petition such as page No. 25,38,41,42,43,48 and 66 are not visible because these pages are totally blurred which amounts that these pages are non est and election petition is fit to be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions o...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Smt. Meera Devi

Court: Patna

R.S. Garg, J.1. The appellant-Union of India being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.4.2001, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7056 of 1999, reported in 2002 (1) PUR 406, whereunder the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ application and issued direction against the present appellant to make payment of disability pension to the respondent (widow of the Sepoy) from the date of discharge of the deceased Sepoy, has filed this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court.2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that Jai Kumar Singh (since deceased) was enrolled in the Army on 6.6.1987. In the year 1993, the said Jai Kishore Singh was granted annual leave and provided with a railway journey warrant No. 70 P.A. 693035 dated 18.4.1993 from Jammu Tawi to Arrah Junction by the authorised officer of the Army Unit. The respondent's husband came to his native village and stayed there for some time. When the said Jai Kishore Singh ...

Shah Alam Vs. State of Bihar ors.

Court: Patna

Narayan Roy and P.K. Sinha, JJ.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release him from illegal detention as he has wrongfully been confined in connection with Kadwa P.S. case No. 127/2001.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, pursuant to Kadwa P.S. case No. 127/2001, was taken into custody and remanded to judicial custody vide order dated 27-9-2001 for an offence under Sections 399,402 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25(1-a), (1-B), 26(2), 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and till 25-12-2001 charge-sheet was not submitted in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathiar and after expiry of a period of 90 days, the petitioner was entitled to be reJeased on bail under the proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). It i...

Jagarnath Prasad Shrivastav Vs. Bharat Mahto and ors.

Court: Patna

B.N.P. Singh, J.1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 along with Pundeo Ram were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 144, 379 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Bharat Mahto, Pundeo Ram. Ram Kisun Sahni and Bhagwan Sahni were prosecuted also for the charges under Section 148, IPC. Accusation against them, as transpiring in the petition of complaint brought on the behest of the appellant was that on 20th March, 1988, they carried out fishing operation in the pond bearing R.S. Plot No. 432 which situated in village Maharani, Police Station Mahamadpur, in the district of Gopalganj and happened to be in possession of the appellant. It was alleged that they removed fish of the value of Rs. 2000 from the pond and on resistance, threatened to assault.2. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses including ocular and also some formal witnesses and the trial Court on consideration of there being bona fide land dispute between the parties, acquitted the responde...

The State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.

Court: Patna

R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The State being aggrieved by, the Award dated 21-12-1998 passed in Reference Case No. 3/94 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Purnea, deciding the reference in favour of 139 workmen holding that termination of these workmen was not proper and retrenched workmen were entitled to relief that the retrenched employees would be entitled to be reinstated with full payment of back wages and the allowances, has filed this petition.3. The State has come to this Court inter alia pleading that the Water Resources Department concerned was not an Industry under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as the Division Bench judgment of this Court has clearly observed that the said department of the State is not an Industry, the Labour Court was not justified in making an Award in favour of the workmen. The second plank of the argument is that the workmen were in fact not workmen and their initial appointments were il...

Dehri Co-operative Development and Cane Marketing Union Vs. State of B ...

Court: Patna

1. On 31st January, 2002 the Court had recorded that this Court for its own protection must consider the matter in appeal.2. On that day it had been pointed out by the appellant through its counsel Dr. Sadanand Jha Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur that there has been a glaring concealment of facts in the writ petition and this matter needs to be taken note of by the Court for its own protection regard being had to the fact that writ jurisdiction of the Court must remain clean and pure.3. Court attention was drawn to paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit reproduced below:--That the statement made in para 1 of the writ application is by way of prayer before this Hon'ble Court and as such it needs no comment by the deponent. However it is stated that for the same cause of action and relief the petitioner and others has filed a Title Suit No. 9 of 1999 in the Court of 2nd Munsif Sasaram and the same is pending. The petitioner has further filed an injunction petition whic...

Yogeshwar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

1. This matter has come up before us on reference made by one of the learned single Judges of this Court.2. The question for consideration is as to whether power envisaged under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is exercisable at the stage of framing of the charge.3. It appears that a first information report was lodged by one Bisheshwar Singh for an offence under Section 302 read with other ancillary section of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act where the petitioner was one of the named accused. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against other accused persons except the petitioners and one Birendra Narayan Singh. On submission of the charge-sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and at the same time, discharged the petitioner and Birendra Narayan Singh vide order dated 21-2-1991. The order taking cognizance by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, wa...