Patna Court December 2004 Judgments
Paras Roy and anr. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Prabhat Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', in short) for quashing the First Information Report including investigation in Mufassil P.S. Case No. 13 of 2002 instituted for the offences under Sections 28 and 35 of the Arms Act, then pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari at East Champaran.2. The facts of the case in brief are that Mufassil P.S. Case No. 100 of 2001 under Arms Act was filed by petitioner No. 1, Paras Roy, against one Shankar Rai alleging therein that while he and petitioner No. 2, Rejeshwar Roy, were guarding the mango crops Shankar Rai with three others came and indulged into criminal activities and, on protest, Shankar Rai fired upon him which misfired. Shankar Rai started fleeing away but he fell down and the petitioners caught him at which he left behind country made pistol and fled away. After investigation the police filed the final report at Annexure-2, holding that the allega...
Tag this Judgment!Bir Bahadur Rai Vs. State and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner, who is a Dalpati, filed this application for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sewak after granting him necessary age relaxation, as according to him, while his case remained pending for such appointment he became overage.3. The State counsel with reference to counter-affidavit duly affirmed by District Panchayati Raj Officer, Samastipur, has refuted the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the case of the petitioner was considered on 9.9.1995 just before he became overage and as there was no vacancy of Panchayat Sewak available until that date he could not be appointed.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the order dated 27.1.2000, as contained in Annexure-11 to the rejoinder submitted that the Director Panchayati Raj had considered the case of 27 Dalpaties who become overage for grant of age relaxation and many out of them are junior to the petitioner a...
Tag this Judgment!Chandeshwar Prasad and ors. Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs-decree holders against order dated 27-4-2002 passed in Title Appeal No. 77/2001, by which the learned Additional District Judge III, Patna has stayed further proceedings of Execution Case No. 4/2001, pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge II, Danapur for execution of the final decree dated 4-7-2001 passed in Title Partition Suit No. 176/1979, till disposal of the said appeal.3. Partition Suit No. 176 of 1979 was filed by the petitioners for partition of their share in the suit properties. The said suit was decreed and preliminary decree was passed on 30-9-1985, against which several first appeals were filed by the defendants, which were dismissed in the year 1996, whereafter the L.P.A. filed against the said judgment was also dismissed on 30-6-1998. Hence the preliminary decree attained finality.4. Thereafter, the proceeding for preparation of final decree started and ul...
Tag this Judgment!Shruti Enterprises Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
R.N. Prasad and Shashank Kumar Singh, JJ. 1. A single Bench referred the. case to the Division Bench and as such the case has been placed before us. Before the Single Bench on the basis of a decision in the case of Smt. Bachcha Devi alias Bachcha Bei Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2000 (1) PLJR 930, counsel for the petitioner argued that the order taking cognizance and issuance of process is an interlocutory order and as such it is not revisable, On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party on the basis of decision in the case of Chandra Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr., 2002 (3) PLJR 206 argued that such an order is not interlocutory one and as such revision is maintainable. In view of the conflicting decisions the learned Single Bench of this Court referred the matter to the Division Bench for decision whether taking cognizance and issuance of process after enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC is an interlocutory order or not.2. The short facts, relevant for the purpose, ar...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuali Rai and anr. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
M.L. Visa, J. 1. Both these appeals arising out of the same judgment and order dated 20.1.2001 passed by XIth. Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 1544 of 1994, convicting and sentencing both the appellants to undergo RI for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 6.7.1990 at about 7. p.m. informant Binod Bhar PW 6 along with his deceased father was returning to his house from a flour mill after grinding wheat. By that time his father had already taken some toddy at the 'Chatti' of one Gorakh Manjhi. In the way the informant met his uncle Dhrub who was returning on his bicycle and informant then put the flour on his bicycle for carrying the same to his house and thereafter, when informant and his father proceeded for some distance, they found both the appellants and Suraj Pandey were moving some distance ahead from them an...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Sah Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
R.S. Garg, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner being aggrieved by Resolution dated 15.8.2003 in which no confidence has been expressed against him is before this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Panchayat Samiti is constituted of 32 members, our of which 17 are elected members while 15 are nominated members. His submission is that the meeting was requisitioned by 10 members only and as the minimum requirement was 11 being one third, the requisition was bad. His further submission is that the meeting was directed to be convened on 14.8.2003 but it was adjourned for want of coram to 15.8.2003. The submission, in fact, is that the meeting was not adjourned to some other convenient date. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the nominated members have no right to requisition a meeting of no confidence and as they have no right to vote in such a meeting, therefore, the meeting could have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Bindu Kumari and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
V.N. Sinha, J. 1. Heard.2. The petitioners have filed this writ application for a direction to the Mukhiya, Paroria Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 3 under whose presidentship the meeting of the Gram Sabha of Paroria Gram Panchayat was held from 12 to 14.6.2003 for appointment on the post of Sewika and Sahayikain the said Gram Panchayat, to sign the proceedings drawn after conclusion of the aforesaid meeting held from 12 to 14.6.2003 and is contained in Annexure-1 series and thereafter to further direct the respondents to issue appointment letters to petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 for the post of Sewika and petitioner Nos. 6 and 7 for the post of Sahayika as they were selected for appointment on the post of Sevika and Sahayika by the Aam Sabha in the meeting conducted on 12 to 14.6.2003. In support of the said prayer petitioners have relied on the report to the Child Development Project Officer, Hassanpur, as contained in her letter No. 8, 56 and 57, dated 19.6.2003 and 26.7.2003 as contained ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Prakash Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties.2. Petitioner, who was the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department (Higher Education), Government of Bihar at the time of filing of the Complaint Case No. 922(C) of 1999 and was arraigned as Accused No. 5 in the said complaint, has assailed the order dated 21.8.1999, passed in the said complaint case by Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna, whereunder the learned Magistrate being prima facie satisfied about the allegations set out in the complaint petition that the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused persons, including the petitioner, has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and other accused persons.3. Perusal of the complaint petition, as contained in Annexure-1 to this application indicates that Sri Guru Govind Singh College a minority institution while remained affiliated to th...
Tag this Judgment!Binod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Sharma and ors. Vs. Chandrasekhar Rai and or ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners who are plaintiffs and defendants (appellants and respondents) are jointly aggrieved by order 28.5.2004 passed in Title Appeal No. 102/1998 by which the learned Second Additional District Judge, Siwan, had allowed the petition of the intervenors-opposite parties under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and impleaded them as respondents in the appeal.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the impugned order on the ground that the learned Court below has committed a clear error of record by assuming that the geneological table given by the intervenors was correct. He pointed out to the geneology given by the plaintiffs and the intervenors respectively in which none of the ancestors appears to be common.4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that third party, who are not concerned with the families of either of the parties t...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Haidar and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Manohar Lal Visa, J. 1. Both these appeals, as they are directed against the same judgment dated 7-8-2001 and order dated 9-8-2001 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2000/2 of 2000 convicting Md. Haidar (appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 469 of 2001), Md. Suhail and Md. Vaish (both appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 508 of 2001) and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of Arms Act, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 9-5-1999 at 9 p.m. Sub Inspector B Kumar, the then Officer-in-charge of Akbarpur Police Station (not examined) recorded the Fard-e-bayan of informant Md. Tanveer Qamar alias Sanjay (P.W. 5) at Bundelkhand Outpost in which informant stated that on the same day at about 6 p.m. he and Md. Babloo were talking with each othe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »