Patna Court July 2005 Judgments
Tunna Mishra Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Rekha Kumari, J. 1. The sole appellant faced trial for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court found him guilty under the said section and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution version, as unfolded in trial, is that on 2.10.1992 at about 10.00 a.m. the informant was in his house. On the said date Durga Paath was to be held in his shop and in that connection his brother (deceased) had gone to the house for taking milk for the said Durga Paath. He parked the scooter in front of his house. In the meantime, appellant Tunna Mishra and five other co-accused,of the case came running there from eastern side and the appellant fired on the deceased hitting his chest. The brother of the informant fell down and thereafter one Sachchu and Binod Kumar alias Battu also fired their Pistols which hit the back of the deceased. His brother died there, yet the informant immediately took him to the Pil...
Tag this Judgment!Praveen Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-18-2005
I.P. Singh, J. 1 This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It has come up for admission. It is directed against the order dated 11.11.2004 passed by the learned Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Jehanabad in Criminal Revision No. 5 of 2004 by which he has refused to interfere with the order dated 13.8.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jehanabad in Tr. No. 1878 of 2004 arising out of M.V. Case No. 29 of 2004 by which the prayer of the petitioner for the release of the seized truck was not considered favourly.2. It appears that the petitioner is the owner of a truck bearing registration No. BR 17G, 4949. On 23.5.2004 it was intercepted at Check Post No. 2 at Jehanabad by the District Transport Officer (hereinafter called the DTO) and since according to him necessary papers were not with the truck, he seized it. He submitted a prosecution report under Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and Section 28(7) of the Bihar Mot...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Verma Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-18-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent No. 6.2. An intervention petition bearing I.A. No. 2909 of 2005 has been filed in this case on behalf of Bihar Rajya Beej Parikchan Karamchari Sangh, Mithapur Agriculture Parichatra, Patna and seven other employees of the department for being impleaded as party respondents for contesting the writ case. Their plea for being impleaded is contested by the petitioner and is supported by the private respondent. According to the learned counsel for the interveners the matter is of importance for the general employees, hence the Karamchari Sangh is a necessary party and further since allegation have been levelled against five persons in paragraph 13 of the writ petition including applicants No. 2, 4 and 8, the intervenors are also necessary parties for the disposal of this case. However, from paragraph 13 of the writ petition it is quite apparent that me...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Ram Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-17-2005
S.N. Hussain, J.1. I. A. No. 6308 of 2004 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing of this civil revision. From the statements made in the application it appears that sufficient grounds have been shown to condone the delay. Hence, the delay is condoned and the interlocutory application is allowed.2. Petitioner is defendant in Title Suit No. 148 of 2000 which was filed by Opposite Party No. 1 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the suit premises and also for declaration that Basgit Parcha granted in favour of Defendant First party by Defendant Second party was illegal, void and obtained by fraud and also for recovery of possession and for other ancillary reliefs.3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 17-8-2004 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Munsif, Madhepura, rejected his petition for recalling the earlier order of that Court dated 19-7-2004 and refused to accept the written statement filed by the petitioner on...
Tag this Judgment!Savitri Devi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Navin Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.2. The petitioner is the wife of one Ramji Singh who at the relevant point of time was employed as Demonstrator in the Physics Department of the P.N. College, Parsa. The writ application questions the order as contained in Annexure 4 by which the deceased husband of the petitioner has been dismissed from service with restropective affect while simultaneously recalling the order dated 3.4.1999 according permission to the request of the deceased employee for voluntary retirement.3. The petitioner's husband while he was in service was convicted for offence under Sections 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code which came to be upheld by this Court in appeal in March, 1998. Subsequently in August, 2001 the appeal preferred before the Supreme Court was also upheld with slight modification.4. This Court would find that the deceased husband of the petitioner submitted an application on 16.1...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Nath Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
M.L. Visa, J. 1. Counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party No. 2 is being filed.2. Heard the learned counsel of petitioners and opposite party No. 2. Petitioners have filed this application for cancellation of the bail granted to opposite party No. 2 on 22.7.2002 by Additional Sessions Judge I, Patna. The case of petitioners is that opposite party No. 2 being a builder sold flats to petitioners but material used in the construction of flats were substandard materials and builder has constructed a fourth floor without the permission of Patna Regional Development Authority and he has cheated the petitioners and has committed criminal breach of trust.3. The impugned order which has been challenged here shows that opposite party No. 2 was granted provisional bail on a condition that after his release on bail, he will complete the works as agreed between the parties and which had been left incomplete in three phases and each phase shall consist of one month and entire unfinished work ...
Tag this Judgment!indradeo Singh and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Aftab Alam, J. 1. Both the appeals are directed against the same judgment and order passed By the trial Court. In Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 1997 there are three appellants, each of whom is convicted under Sections 302 and 452 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and for one year respectively for the offences of murder and house-trespass. In Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 1997 there are four appellants; all of them are convicted only under Section 452 of the Penal Code with the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. Before the trial Court appellant No. 1 in Cr. Appeal No. 385 of 1997, namely, Indradeo Singh alias Indo Singh alone was charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code. All the remaining six appellants were charged under Section 302/149 of the Penal Code. All the seven appellants were further charged separately under Sections 452 and 380 of the Penal Code. At the end of the trial, however, they were convicted and sentenced a...
Tag this Judgment!Nathuni Yadav Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Sadanand Mukherjee, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24-11-1987 passed in Sessions Trial No. 300 of 1985 by Shri Narendra Narayan Singh, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge. Ara wherein and whereunder the appellant Nathuni Yadav had been convicted under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and further had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under the aforesaid section, stating therein that the period undergone by him, as under-trial prisoner, would be set-off as provided under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Case of the prosecution relates to an offence occurred on 22-05-1984 at about 11 p.m. Ram Pravesh Ojha (deceased) was sleeping at Sahan i.e., open space outside his house, where his sons Barmeshwarnath Ojha (PW-6), Gore Ojha (PW 8) and Rinku Ojha were also sleeping, whereas the informant, brother of the deceased, Brijlal Ojha was sleeping in the courtyard (Sahan) in the house and the ladies were sleeping ins...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhunath Sahu @ Prabhunath Sah Vs. Nagina Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. These two civil revisions are between the same parties and arise out of the same proceeding and as such they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner was the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 236 of 1972, which he had filed for, among others, a decree of eviction of defendants from the suit land, which the plaintiff had leased out to the defendants by registered deed dated 16-8-1968 for ten years for a monthly rental of Rs. 125/- for running timber business, but according to the plaintiff, neither the defendants paid rent nor vacated the suit land even after service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act sent by the plaintiff determining the lease.3. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide Judgment and decree dated 29-5-1987 against which the defendants filed Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 2 of 1987, but in the meantime the full period of lease expired. Thereafter, the defendants-appellants stopped ...
Tag this Judgment!Sharda Devi Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
C.M. Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, referred to as 'the Code') with a prayer to quash the First Information Report of Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 1 of 2004 dated 2nd January 2004 which was instituted for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and six others. The complainant-informant Birendra Prasad filed Complaint Case No. 1767 of 2003 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and six others and the complaint petition was sent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra to Police for institution of FIR and, accordingly, the FIR has been instituted and the Police is conducting investigation into the case.2. The allegation as levelled by the complainant/informant in the said complaint petition is that one of the accused Jitendra Prasad (who is not petitioner), the husband of the petitioner Sharda Devi has filed Title Suit No....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »