Patna Court August 2002 Judgments
Bishun Deo Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Rai for the petitioner, learned JC to GP IV, and Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh learned Addl Standing Counsel for respondent No. 5 (the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer for an appropriate direction to the respondent authorities to give the retirement benefits to the petitioner who claims to have superannuated from the post of Panchayat Sevak, on completion of 58 years of age on 28.2.1996.2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner had joined the services of the Bihar Government on 21.12.1956 as a Panchayat Sevak and was confirmed in service with effect from 12.12.1972. According to the further statements made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, he was transferred from Madhepur Block to Madhwapur Block in 1979 which the petitioner did not join. The details with respect to the transfer are not stated in the writ petition, left alone annexing a copy of the transfer order. According to ...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Sahni and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 3-5-2001, passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in Cr. Appeal No. 40/93 confirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 9.2.1993, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class in Complaint Case No. 736 (C) of 1990 (Trail No. 246 of 1993). The revisionists were convicted for the offence under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and six months respectively. The appellate Court set aside the order of sentence maintaining the order of conviction and directed the revisionists to be released on a bond of Rs. 2000/- for maintaining peace and to be good behaviour for one year.2. Counsel for the revisionists submitted that the complainant in his complaint petition alleged that Plot No. 798 was the P.O. land, whereas in his evidence in Court examined as P.W. 3 he alleged as Plot No. 762. Moreover, the trial Court and the appellate Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Upadhyay and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Someshwar Nath Pathak, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 13.8.2001 whereby the learned Raj way Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara, has rejected the prosecution report submitted by the police under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code and accepted the final report.2. The revisionists lawyer submitted that the revisions had filed a case of murder against the informant of this case who escaped from the rigorous of law in the aforesaid murder case. The informant of this case filed the case alleging kidnapping of his son. The police submitted final report and recommended for prosecution of the informant under Section 182/211. In such circumstances, the Court should have atleast enquired in the matter before accepting the final report or rejecting the prayer of the police to prosecute the informant for the offence under Sections 182/211, IPC.3. The scope of the revision is limited and any order passed by the lower Court can be challenged or assailed on the ground of...
Tag this Judgment!Deo Narayan Gope Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment 22.9.2001, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa (Nalanda) in Cr. Appeal No. 75 of 1999 confirming the judgment of the trial Court, passed by the S.D.J.M. Hilsa on 2.8.1999 in G.R. No. 1015 of 1995Tr. No. 675 of 1999. Both the revisionists were convicted by the trial Court under Sections 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and three months respectively. The appellate Court acquitted the revisionist Deo Narayan Gope for the offence under Section 323, IPC, but maintained his conviction and sentence under Section 342, IPC. The revisionist No. 2 Mahendra Gope's, conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court was maintained by the appellate Court as well.2. This revision has been admitted on the point of sentence only. The revisionists lawyer submitted that both the Courts below did not given the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or the Prob...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Keshri and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
B.N.P. Singh, J.1. This criminal revision application is against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below when finding of guilt recorded by the Court below against petitioners was confirmed by the appellate Court with admonition to them as enjoined under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Since learned Counsel for the petitioners despite adjournment on the last day has not appeared even today to argue the case, after perusal of the record and hearing Counsels for Opp-Parties finding is recorded as follows:2. The factual matrix as appearing from the first information report and also the narrations made by the witnesses at trial are that on 12.6.1997 since petitioner No. 1 was constructing wall in the passage which could have blocked the ingress to the house of Kalo Devi, she registered a protest, pursuant to which there had been abuses between Kalo Devi, P.W. 4 and petitioner No. 2, both of whom pulled hairs of each other. When Tarn San came and resisted action of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Brijesh Prasad @ Brijeshwar Prasad and ors. Vs. Most. Kamla Verma and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment passed in Title Appeal No. 64 of 1995 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Patna reversing the judgment and decree passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 19 of 1991 by the Munsif, Patna City.2. In short, the case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No. 1 Dineshwar Math Verma purchased the suit property in the name of his close relation Satya Narain Lai (plaintiff No. 2). On 7.1.1972, plaintiffs inducted the father of defendants-appellants as tenant on suit property which is a portion of the holding in question and fully described in Schedule 1 of the plaint at a monthly rental of Rs. 100/- which was finally increased up to Rs. 515/- from 1990. The remaining portion the holding was in occupation of other tenants. Their further case is that since last one year i.e. from 25.4.1991 the plaintiff No. 1 was posted at Patna as Deputy Secretary Forest and Environment Department, Government of Bihar and he was going to re...
Tag this Judgment!Jamuna Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 10th July, 2001 (Annexure-1) whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of Senior Selection Grade and Super Time Scale has been rejected. His prayer is to issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant promotion to senior selection Grade with effect from 1.4.1986 and super time scale with effect from 1.4.19892. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that in a proceeding initiated against the petitioner, he was held guilty in purchase of insecticides worth Rs. 11,22,000/- and was imposed the punishment of deduction of 25% of his pension. For bungling in the purchase of medicine, a criminal case was also instituted and petitioner was charge-sheeted in the case. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the same took, cognisance of the offence and issued process against the petitioner.3. Earlier the case of the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanti Industries Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Aftab Alam, J.1. The petitioner before this Court is a partnership firm which was running an industrial unit, manufacturing plastic containers under ire name of M/s. Jayanti Industries. The petitioner firm has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the Board in disconnecting the high tension electrical connection given to its unit on 15.7.2000 for non-payment of dues and in raising a demand for Rs. 6,38,754,54 paise vide letter No. 779/Rev, dated 6.9.2001 issued by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Muzaffarpur Circle, Muzaffarpur. According to the petitioner, the disconnection of its electrical line was illegal because it was effected without giving the firm seven clear days notice and the demand raised by the Superintending Engineer was also illegal, invalid and unenforceable against the petitioner.2. The facts of the case are brief and without any controversy. The petitioner firm had an industrial unit manufacturing plastic containers from before. In the year 1997 ...
Tag this Judgment!Jamuna Tiwary Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Someshwar Nath Pathak, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 6.4.2000, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur, Bhabhua, in Cr. Appeal No. 214/2 of 1993/2000 confirming the order of conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class on 18.9.1993 in G.R. No. 1011/88 Tr. No. 166/93, The revisionist Jamuna Tiwary was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and he had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on both the counts and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellate Court maintained the order of conviction, but reduced the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment for both the offences.2. It has been submitted by the revisionist that the alleged sale-deed which was purportedly forged by the revisionist was not produced in Court. Moreover, none of the witnesses who allegedly figured on the sale-deed were produced in Court. All the six witnesses ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard.2. Counter-affidavit has been taken on record.3. In relation to F.I.R. No. 9/2000 of Choutarwa P.S., District West Champaran, the present petitioner has come to this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings. The petitioner says that neither the first informant, the son of the kidnapped person said anything against the present petitioner either in his First Information Report and subsequent thereto, nor the kidnapped person namely, Dhrub Singh did speak even a single word against the interest of the petitioner, therefore, the registration of an offence against the present petitioner, his arrest, continuance of the proceedings etc. be held to be absolutely illegal. In support of the petition the petitioner had filed the copy of the First Information Report lodged by Nawal Kishore Singh, son of Dhrub Singh, the supervision note and the statement of Dhrub Singh son of Singhal Singh recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. In the counter-reply the respondents have relie...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »