Patna Court October 2007 Judgments
Nageshwar Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Chandra Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 30th January 2003 of the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 62 of 1992 (arising out of vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 of 1992) whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and respectively sentenced to R.I. for 1 year and a fine of Rs. 250/-, R.I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and R.I. for 1 year and all the sentences are to run concurrently.2. The Prosecution commenced with the written report dated 4th July 1992 (Ext-3) of the informant Prahlad Mahto (who was not examined before the trial court, as he had died), a lecturer in Bhagwan Budha college, Mithapur. He alleged in his written report that in the 1st week of May, he had submitted a surrender certificate along with application to the Clerk Nageshwar Babu (appellant) of the Rationing Office for preparation of ration card....
Tag this Judgment!State of Bihar Vs. Sheikh Samsul and Sheikh Gayas
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and Rekha Kumari, JJ. 1. Sheikh Samsul and Sheikh Asfaque were charged for intentionally committing murder of Md. Askari punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Sheikh Gayas was charged for committing murder by intentionally causing death of Md. Asad, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides the aforesaid, they have also been charged for offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. Aforesaid three persons along with six other persons, namely, Sheikh Chengwa, Sheikh Kalim @ Gedhwa, Sheikh Juman, Sheikh Aziz, Sheikh Ishteyaque and Sheikh Nayeem have been charged for committing the murders of Md. Askari and Md. Asad in prosecution of common object as a member of unlawful assembly punishable under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition thereto, Sheikh Kalim, Sheikh Juman, Sheikh Aziz, Sheikh Ishteyaquye and Sheikh Nayeem have been charged for possessing arms for unlawful purposes, punishable under...
Tag this Judgment!Champa Devi @ Champa Kumari Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-04-2007
1. Heard Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General for the respondents.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.7.2007, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 14236 of 2006 dismissing the writ application.3. The short facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:The appellant, who was working on the post of Angan Bari Sevika, resigned from her post on 20th February, 2006 to contest for the post of Mukhiya of Pakharpur Gram Panchayat in the district of Arwal. Her resignation dated 20th February, 2006 was accepted on 21.2.2006 by the Aam Sabha. In the election for the post of Mukhiya, however, she was elected. After her election, the matter, however, was reported to the Election Commission that the appellant was disqualified to contest, the election of Mukhiya as she was an Angan Bari Sevika, coupled with the facts that her resignation was not accepted properly and she was holding a post of profit....
Tag this Judgment!Ranjeet Sinha @ Ranjeet Prasad Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-04-2007
Ghansyam Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. The proceeding in Question is under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The final order has already been passed directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the opposite party No. 2. The petitioner preferred revision against that order bearing Cr. Revision No. 705 of 1996. In that very revision, the petitioner filed a petition dated 12.3.2007 praying to set the D.N.A. test of the petitioner and the child born out of (sic) of opposite party No. 2 in order to arrive at right conclusion with regard to dispute of the marriage. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 20.3.2007 refused to allow prayer of the petitioner.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the D.N.A. test of the child is important to establish the fact of marriage of the petitioner with opposite party No. 2. Therefore, for the ends of justice, the Lower court should be directed to hold D.N.A. test of the petitioner and the child of opposite party No. 2.4. From th...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir Kumar Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Rekha Kumari, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 29-8-2002 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 195 of 2000/80 of 1993 whereby he has convicted appellant-Sudhir Kumar for the offence under Sections 304B, 498A, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has sentenced him on 31-8-2002 to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three years respectively for the offences under Sections 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. There were three more accused persons in this case, namely, Tun Singh alias Bal Mukund, Sita Devi and Yasoda Devi. Among them Yasoda Devi died during...
Tag this Judgment!Suba Rai Vs. Bindeshwar Rai and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
S.N. Hussain, J.1. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant-judgment debtor-petitioner against order dated 25.03.2006 by which the learned Civil Judge I (S.D.), Vaishali at Hajipur disposed of Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 2001 filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake of brevity) and rejected his claim for dismissing the execution petition bearing Execution Case No. 05 of 2000 filed by the plaintiff-decree holder-opposite parties as not maintainable.2. Partition Suit No. 35 of 1952 (12/1964) was filed by opposite party 1st set for partition of the suit properties, which was decreed on 27.01.1964 and a preliminary decree of partition was prepared, which was challenged by the defendant-petitioner in First Appeal No. 445 of 1964, which was dismissed by this Court on 11.08.1970. Thereafter, final decree was also prepared by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Ist Court, Muzaffarpur, on 14.1...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Upadhyays Vs. Madan Rai and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J. 1. Defendant No. 1- petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.2005 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Title Suit No. 171 of 1986 accepting the counterclaim of Defendant No. 13, has preferred this application. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that defendant No. 13 appeared in the suit and laid counter claim against the plaintiff as also other defendants. He had chosen to file the counter claim without filing the written statement. By reason of the impugned order said prayer has been allowed. 3. Mr. Tiwary, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a counter claim can be laid only against plaintiff and not against co-defendants. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Hem Narain Thakur v. Deo Kant Mishra and Ors. AIR 2000 NOC 23 Patna in which the placitum B reads as follows:(B) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), Order 8 Rule 6-A-Counter claim-Allowing of-Cl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›