Patna Court March 2006 Judgments
Manju Kumari and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Mridula Mishra, J.1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the State.2. Present writ application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the first information report of Kadamkuan P. S. Case No. 716 of 2005 corresponding to G. R. No. 3911 of 2005 registered under Sections 307, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 9, 9A, 9B, 9C and 9D, 13(1)(a), (b) and (c), 27(a)(b), (c) and (d), 27A and 28B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and 13(1) of the Drugs (Control) Act, 1950. Further prayer of the petitioners is for direction to release the seized articles, such as manufactured medicines etc. seized by the Officer-in-Charge, Kadamkuan Police Station on 2-9-2005 from the factory premises of the petitioners.3. On 1-9-2005 Officer-in-Charge of Kadamkuan Police Station in course of raid of some other factory premises manufacturing drugs, came to know about manufacturing of drugs at petitioners' premises and when petitioner No. 2 was absent from his...
Tag this Judgment!Panchawati Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. In this group of 31 matters, the learned counsels for the parties and the Government counsels have, jointly, submitted that common. question has been involved in relation to the entitlement, pursuant to . the Government resolution, dated 9th February, 1973. to the teachers, who were working in the Non-Government schools, which were taken over by the Government as Government schools. It is, therefore. jointly, submitted that they may be decided in terms of the consensus they have reached to the effect that the Education Department, in the Government of the State of Bihar, may be directed to decide their cases within stipulated frame of time and those who are entitled to the benefits arising out of the said resolution, be paid immediately. Accordingly, those petitioners, whose cases are not favourably decided, be informed within a fortnight by appropriate postal services so that they can pursue appropriate remedies. 2. Learned Standing counsel No. I, for the State Go...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.9.2002 passed by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna in Cr. Case No. 325 (C) of 2002, whereby it had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 166 of the Companies Act and directed for issuance of process against the petitioner.2. According to the complaint, petitioner happened to be the Managing Director of M/s Bihar State Pharmaceutical and Chemical Development Corporation Limited, a Govt. of Bihar undertaking, and its annual general meeting was not held till 27.9.2001. further allegation is that M/s Bihar State Pharmaceutical and Chemical Development Corporation Limited, hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation', did not file annual returns of the relevant period in the office of the Registrar of the Companies.3. It is the assertion of the petitioner that he joined as the Managing Director of the Corporation on 10.10.2001 and hence, he can not be held responsible either for ...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Roy Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
1. A proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1981', was initiated against the petitioner. The order of detention was passed under Section 12(2) of the Act vide order dated 2-4-2005 by the District Magistrate, Begusarai, respondent No. 3 Annexure-1. The said order was approved by the State Government vide order dated 13-4-2005, Annexure-2. The petitioner filed representation on 5-5-2005 against the detention. Annexure-3. The representation of the petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 23-5-2005 (Annexure-4). The final order was passed detaining the petitioner till 1st of April, 2006 under Section 21(1) and 22 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act (Annexure-5). The petitioner has challenged the order of detention, (Annexure-1 and 5) on the ground of unexplained delay in disposal of his representation.2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, In para 8 of the counter-affidavit statement ha...
Tag this Judgment!Budhan Thakur @ Mithilesh Thakur Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing a portion of the order dated 9.3.2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Banka in Sessions Trial No. 436 of 1992 arising out of Katoria P.S. Case No. 139 of 1991 (G.R.No. 1086 of 1991), whereby the prayer made by the petitioner to transfer the case to the Juvenile Justice Beard for ascertaining his age, has been rejected.2. In view of the order which I propose to pass in this application, it is inexpedient to give in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the petitioner is an accused in Katoria P.S. Case No. 139 of 1991 registered under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He preferred application before the Sessions Judge for grant of bail. While rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail, the learned Sessions Judge, directed for holding an inquiry in regard to the claim made by him that he is a juvenile.3. It seems that the petitioner was ex...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Prasad Singh @ Arjun Mahto Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J. 1. On the basis of a report given to the police, Patna G.R.P.S. Case No. 254 of 1990 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act was registered against three unknown persons. Police, after Investigation, submitted charge sheet against three accused persons, namely, Binod Yadav, Shiv Yadav and Bijay Prakash Singh. Ultimately, they were committed to the court of sessions and are facing trial In Sessions Trial No. 513 of 1993. Another charge sheet was submitted against accused Raju and he has also been committed to the court of sessions and is facing trial in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 1997, So far as petitioner is concerned, supplementary charge sheet dated 17.7.1997 was submitted against him under Sections 304/302/34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act. After submission of the charge sheet against the petitioner, the learned Magistrate had take...
Tag this Judgment!Akhilesh Sah Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Rekha Kumari, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 31.7.2002 passed by Sri. V.K. Singh, J.M. 1st Class, Saharsa in Complaint Case No. 676-C of 1994 by which he has recalled the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 for his cross examination.2. Heard.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Complaint Case No. 676-C of 1994 was fixed for judgment, but the trial court did not deliver the judgment and recalled the complainant of the case, namely, Ram Nath Sah for his further cross examination. Learned Counsel also submitted that the complainant was given ample opportunity to adduce his evidence, even then he did not complete his evidence. Hence, adjournment of the judgment and recall of the complainant for further cross examination is bad in the eye of law. The provisions of Section 311 of the Code is not meant for filling up the lacuna of the prosecution. There...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Rekha Kumari, J.1. Heard.2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 18.3.2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 27/2004 by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and has issued processes against him to stand trial.3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the informant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case has been registered under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code but the victim girl had gone with him out of her free will. She had sworn an affidavit (Annexure-3) on 19.3.2004 that she was aged about 19 years and that had married the petitioner on 4.11.2003. He further referred to Annexure-5 which is a copy of plaint of Title Suit No. 754 of 2004 filed under Section 9 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bank of India Vs. Nawal Kishore
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
D.P.S. Choudhary, President: 1. This appeal has been heard ex parte as the respondent did not appear in spite of the notice. The appellant is the O.P. (Central Bank of India, Bagaha (West Champaran). The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 4.5.1998 passed in Complaint Case No. 62/1997 by District Forum, Bettiah (West Champaran). 2. Appeal No. 399/1999 has been preferred by the O.P.-appellant against the order dated 30.6.1998 passed in Execution Case No. 1/99 by District Forum, West Champaran under Section 27 of the C.P. Act for non-compliance of the order passed in the Complaint Case No. 62/97 and appellant has been sentenced to pay Rs. 500 as fine within two months. 3. The complainant has alleged that he had a cloth shop in the town of Baga in the name and style of Tirath Raj Kishun Prasad of which he was proprietor. He had opened a current account No. C/C 380 in the Central Bank of India, Begusarai Branch. On 19.8.1997 he issued a cheque of Rs. 2,21,196.50 in his afores...
Tag this Judgment!Sidharth Construction Trading Pvt. Limited Vs. the Union of India (Uoi ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
S.K. Katriar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.9.2005 (Annexure 1), whereby it has been decided by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) that business dealings with the petitioner and also its sister concern(s) and partner(s) should be banned on all Indian Railways including Patna Units for a period of two years with immediate effect, and a sum of Rs. 1,93,862/- has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner for supplying track ballast not upto the required specifications of the said value,2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner had submitted tenders for supply of track ballast of total quantity of 17,146,27 MT. After the supplies were made, samples of the same were sent for test to the Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology and were found upto the specified standards as per the test report dated 29.6.2004 (Annexure 4/1), It is further stated in the writ petition that the work was completed on 15.7.2004, and during the course of vigilance c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›