Patna Court June 2006 Judgments
State of Bihar Vs. Hare Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-27-2006
1. This Government appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th November, 1987 of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra passed in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1985 whereby respondents have been acquitted of the charge under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The fard-beyan (Ext.-1) of the case was lodged by Dr. Nagina Sharma (PW 5) on 31st May, 1979 at 10.00 p.m. in Sadar Hospital, Chapra. The informant stated that that day (31-5-1979) at about 7 o'clock while his (informant's) nephew Pashupati Nath Bhagat (the deceased) after taking tea at the Hotel of Ram Ekbal Bhagat at Doriganj Morh was proceeding towards his house through the road and when he (the deceased) reached near Ata-Chakki of Raghunath Bhagat, accused Umesh Bhagat (absconding accused) who could not be put on trial and these respondents were found present there and one truck bearing Regd. No. BRD-3561 was also parked there. As soon as Pashupati Bhagat (the deceased) arrived there, accused Umesh Bhaga...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bihar and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Purendra Sulan Kit and ors. ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
1. This judgment and order is to govern approximately 819 Letters Patent Appeals and Writ Petitions which have been heard as analogous cases because the concerned employees in all these oases whether they are impleaded as petitioners or respondents belonged to cadre of Class III or Class IV employees under the Health Department, Government of Bihar. The services of these employees have been terminated on alleged illegalities/ irregularities in their appointment.2. On behalf of the affected employees and on behalf of the State arguments stretching over several dates have been advanced covering important issues of law such as when an appointment may be treated as illegal or when it should be termed only as irregular capable of being regularised by the State on relevant considerations.3. According to the case of the affected employees, they have been appointed on sanctioned vacant posts, and, they are qualified persons, to hold respective posts in Class III and Class IV service in the He...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Kumar Sinha Vs. the Bank of India and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Barin Ghosh, J.1. Heard both the parties.2. Petitioner was working at Chandaur Branch of Bank of India. The said Branch was under the administrative control of Bhagalpur Regional Office of the said Bank. Petitioner was transferred from the said Branch to Saharsa Branch of the said Bank and was waiting for his reliever. The reliever of the petitioner came on 17th July, 1997 to Chandaur Branch and took over charge of the said Branch when the petitioner was not present.3. Subsequent thereto on 30th November, 1998, a charge-sheet, containing six charges, was issued to the petitioner and thereby a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. On 1st June, 1999, a supplementary charge-sheet was issued to include two more charges. Petitioner did not give any affective reply to the charge-sheet or to the supplementary charge-sheet. The matter was thereupon enquired into by an Enquiry Officer. In course of enquiry, witnesses deposed on behalf of prosecution and several documents were tend...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Dalmiia and Company Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. Through this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have called in question the order dated 22.1.2003 passed in Cr. Revision No. 502 of 2001 by Additional Sessions Judge XII, Patna as well as their prosecution under Complaint Case No. 1775C of 1999 pending before the court of Shri P.m. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate Patna and have prayed to quash the same.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered firm engaged in construction business. Petitioner No. 2 is its Chairman and petitioner No. 3 is Executive Officer whereas the complainant opposite party No. 2 is a supplier of building materials like stone chips, stone bricks, bolder etc. In the year 1994, the petitioner No. 1 was awarded contract for making construction work at Airport, Patna.3. The prosecution story as contained in complaint petition, lodged by opposite party No. 2 is that on request of the petitioners, the opposite party No. 2 agreed to supply building materials on the basis of accepted price f...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bihar Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Rajiv Mahto
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Navin Sinha, J.1. Let the order at serial No. 2 be corrected by deleting 'No. 2' after the words 'opposite party'.2. Learned Counsel for opposite party regrets the inadvertance by him on the previous date and submits that the trial of opposite party has not been concluded as yet.3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party.4. The present application has been preferred by the State for cancellation of the bail granted to opposite party by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Asthama P.S. Case No. 75 of 2002 under Section 392 of the Penal Code on 10.11.2003.5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the antecedent of a person is a relevant consideration for grant of bail to enable the Court to consider the possibility of commission of offence if released on bail. In the present case paragraph-83 of the case diary noticed five more orosecutions against the opposite party under various cognizable and non-bailable sections including 302...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Swarup Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and Yogendra Prasad S ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
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 3.6.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge IV, Vaishli at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2001 by which he has rejected the petition of the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code to discharge them.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appeared for Opposite Party No. 2.3. It appears that a complaint was filed by opposite Party No. 2 against the petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali for taking against them for the offence under Sections 363, 364, 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code for wrongfully abducting him and his son and keeping them confined and threatening them to commit their murder unless the complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) executed a sale deed in respect of his house and land situated in village Desri, Vaishali. The complainant...
Tag this Judgment!The Director General, Sports Authority of India and ors. Vs. the State ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
I.P. Singh, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It is directed against the order dated 22.12.2005 passed by Sri Manoj Kumar II, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna whereby he has ordered for issuance of summons to the petitioners (wrongly stated in paragraph No. 1 of the present petition that by this order he has taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioners).2. From the facts of this case it would appear that opposite party No. 2 had filed a complaint petition against the present petitioners on various grounds mentioned therein. It has been stated that on 23.11.2002 opposite party No. 2 fell down while practicing at S.A.I. Kolkata and got the retina of his left eye detached. He was examined at Sankar Netralaya where he was operated upon and he incurred an expenditure more than Rs. 1,00,00/-. Opposite party No. 2 approached the petitioners for the re-imbursement of his claim of Rs. 64,914.50 unde...
Tag this Judgment!Surya Bansh Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 and learned S.C. 12 for the State.2. Petitioners assail the order dated 29.11.2000 in certified copy of which the date of the order (sic) has been wrongly mentioned as 29.11.2001 passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, in Revision Case No. 364/94 and 365/94 whereby the revision applications filed by the respondent 2nd set which includes respondent No. 6 have been allowed.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order mainly on two grounds. He states that firstly the Joint Director, Consolidation had committed serious error by setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer without at the same time setting aside the appellate order.4. The second and more important objection of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the said order is passed upon the factual error in holding that the Consolidation Officer has passed the orders without observing...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sewak Mahton Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.1. The appeal is against the judgement dated 30.4.92 of the Special Judge, Begusarai passed in Garhpura P.S. Case No. 4 of 1986 (G.R. No. 221/86) whereby the appellant Ram Sewak Mahton has been held to have violated the Clouse-10, 16 and 17 of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) order 1984 and also Clause-5(i)(ii), (vii) and 10 of Form-C (terms and conditions) of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) order 1984 and accordingly convicted under Section 7 read with Section 12(A) of the essential commodities Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.1. The prosecution commenced with written report (Ext.2) dt. 30.1.86 of the informant (P.W.3), a Supply Inspector who stated that on 29.1.86 at about 11 A.M. he (P.W.3) inspected the shop of the appellant who is P.D.S. dealer and found that a board was hanging at the shop and there was no entry in the board. He demanded register from the appellant and then the appellant went into his house and brought...
Tag this Judgment!Lagandeo Rai and ors. Vs. Rajendra Jha and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 8.7.1988 passed by Sri Arun Chandra Das, 2nd Additional District Judge. Vaishali at Hajipur in Title Appeal No. 12 of 1985 affirming the judgment and decree dated 14.2.1985 and 26.2.1985, respectively, passed by Sri Uma Shankar Prasad, Munsif Ist. Hajipur in Title Suit No. 123 of 1974 and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs respondents.2. The brief fact of the case is as follows:Plaintiff Rajendra Jha and others filed, a title suit, before the Munsif Ist, Hajipur which was numbered as Title Suit No. 123 of 1974. The said title suit was filed for declaration of plaintiffs' title and for recovery of possession of the suit land appertaining to old khata No. 31 Khesra No. 29 measuring an area of 2 kathas 10 dhurs situated in village Balatar P.S. Hajipur District Vaishali.The plaintiffs' case, in short, is that one Damari Jha had two sons, namely, Brahmdeo Jha and Sukhdeo Jha. The said Da...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »