Patna Court April 2007 Judgments
The State of Bihar Vs. Jhari Sharma,
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-30-2007
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and Abhijit Sinha, JJ.1. Jhari Sharma, Kailash Singh and Rana Singh were put on trial for commission of the offence under Section 148, 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and 27(1) of the Arms Act. Additional Sessions Judge. Fast Track Court No. II. Khagaria by judgment dated 29th of January, 2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 351 of 1999 held all of them quilty under Section 148, 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and 27(1) of the Arms Act. By order dated 30.1.2004 he awarded sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, death for offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one year under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months...
Tag this Judgment!Shailendra Pratap Singh and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-30-2007
Navin Singh, J.1. The petitioners are residents of village Kulharia under the territorial jurisdiction of the Kulharia Gram panchayat. Respondent No. 7 is a resident of Village Kuberchak, Dhandiha Gram Panchayat. The petitioners are voters of Kulharia Gram Panchayat while respondent No. 7 is a voter of Dhandiha Gram Panchayat. Both Gram Panchayats are under the Koilwar Block district Ghojpur. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 7 filed nominations for the post of Mukhiya of the Kulharia Gram Panchayat. The petitioner filed objection to the nomination filed by respondent No. 7 on the ground that he was not a voter of the Kulharia Gram Panchayat and therefore ineligible to file such nomination. The objection was rejected on 21-3-2007 by the Returning Officer. The elections took place and results were declared on 17-6-2006. Respondent No. 7 was elected as Mukhia.2. The issue for determination is, if a voter of one Gram Panchayat is eligible to contest for the post of Mukhiya from anothe...
Tag this Judgment!ishar Hazra and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Abhijit Singh, J.1. The six appellants herein along with one Ramanand Hazra were put on Trial in Sessions Trial No. 37/40 of 1988/ 90 arising out of Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 173/87. Sri Jaleshwar Ram, the then Ist Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, by his judgment dated 13-11-1992 convicted accused Ishar Hazra for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307 and 148 of the IPC, accused Bhuar Hazra and Ramanand Hazra under Sections 324 and 148 of IPC and the remaining four accused under Section 147 of IPC and by order dated 16-11-1992 while releasing accused Ramanand Hazra under the provisions of Section 360(1), Cr. P.C. convicted accused Ishar Hazra, taking into account his advanced age, to simple imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 307 of IPC and simple imprisonment for one year under Section 148 of IPC; Bhuar Hazra was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324 of IPC and one year under Section 148 of IPC and...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Ram @ Kedar Nath Ram Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Sadanand Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application for quashing the proceeding against the petitioner under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 39 and 44 of Bihar Electricity Act, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, patna.2. Both parties were heard.3. The fact of the case is that the Assistant Electrical Engineer, PESU, Patna conducted a raid on 15.06.2004 and in course of raid it was found that in the houses of this petitioner and that of Mr. Ragunath, Mr. Sudama Prasad and Mr. Jitendra Prasad the theft of power by taking connection with overhead wire was being done. The aforesaid persons were indulged in the said illegal act. It was also found that obstruction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumers. Allegation is that the petitioner used or attempted abstraction or consumption of load of 2 kilowatts and at the relevant time the petitioner was not present in the house, and the wife and children of the petitioner were...
Tag this Judgment!Narmadeshwar Dubey and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Shiva Kirti Singh and Subash Chandra Jha, JJ.1. All the three appeals have been heard together because they arise out of the same impugned judgment and order and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. From the impugned judgment dated 15th June, 2002, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, West Champaran at Bettiah, in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 1999, it appears that six accused persons were put on trial but out of them one Paras Dubey died during pendency of the trial and remaining five accused persons have preferred these three criminal appeals against their conviction. Appellant Narmadeshwar Pandey has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/109 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Basanti Kunwar has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Both of them (appellants of Cr. Appeal 335/02) have been awarded R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default to und...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Parwat Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Dharnidhar Jha, J.1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj disposed of the prayer for bail of O.P. No. 2 Rajesh Giri who surrendered before him in connection with Keteya P.S. case No. 92 of 2006 under Sections 307 etc. of the Indian Penal Code by rejecting prayer for bail. The O.P. No. 2 filed B. P. No. 963 of 2006 on the same day of rejection of his prayer by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, i.e. on 20-9-2006. The learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj directed the petition to be put up before him on the same day, i.e. 20-9-2006 and after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor directed the release of O.P. No. 2 on bail. The informant of the case, i.e. the petitioner Dinesh Parwat felt aggrieved by the above order and filed the present criminal miscellaneous petition with a prayer to cancel the order of bail passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj.2. The fact of the case was that in an occurrence dated 31-5-2006 all the accused persons cam...
Tag this Judgment!Md. NehaluddIn and anr. Vs. Md. Sajid and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
1. The plaintiffs-appellants instituted Suit No. 192 of 1976 for specific performance of the registered agreement for sale dated 6th April, 1976 executed by the defendant No. 1 agreeing thereby to sell to the plaintiffs the subject property belonging to defendant No. 1 at and for a total consideration of Rs. 12,000/-, of which a sum of Rs. 2,000/- had already been paid and another sum of Rs. 7,500/- paid at the time of execution of the said agreement. The agreement provided that on 31st May, 1997 the plaintiffs shall pay to the defendant No. 1 the remaining consideration of Rs. 2,500/-; whereupon the defendant No. 1 shall convey the property in question by executing a registered instrument of conveyance.2. On 21t June, 1976 the defendant No. 1 sold half of the said property to the defendant No. 2, who happens to be a step brother of defendant No. 1, for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- only.3. In the suit, the plaintiffs prayed for relief of specific performance against the defendant No...
Tag this Judgment!Phulwasi Devi @ Phulbasi Devi Vs. Ashan Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Rekha Kumari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2/6/2000 passed by the Subordinate Judge IX, Patna in Misc. Case No. 18 of 1996 filed under Order XXI Rule 99 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) wherein he has ordered for redelivery of possession of the disputed land to the respondents 1st set.2. Appellant Phulbasi Devi filed Title Suit No. 22 of 1987 for specific performance of agreement for sale against respondent second set regarding 8 katha 11 dhurs of land of plot Nos. 54, 55 and 60, Khata No. 507 of village Dhakanpura (Boring Road), Patna, part of holding Nos. 116/108, Circle No. 249, Ward No. 34 of Patna Municipal Corporation. The land in question belonged to the respondent second set, namely, Bani Dey, her son Debashish Dey and daughter Jayshree Roy, all of whom are now residing at Kolkata. According to the appellant the respondents second set entered into an agreement with the appellant for sale of the a...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Jha Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-23-2007
1. During the subject assessment years, there is no dispute that the assessee filed his returns. Those returns were assessed. In those returns the assessee did not disclose that he has made any investment in any immovable property. After those assessments were over, the assessing officer received an information to the effect that the assessee has concealed the fact that he has made investments in two immovable properties and income arising; out of those immovable properties. Accordingly, notices were issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act seeking to make reassessment of the income of the assessee for the assessment years 1988-89 to 1992-93 and also for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1994-95. In response to the notices under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee disclosed before the assessing officer that he does not own any immovable property, but his wife owns two immovable properties and acquisition of those properties, source of fund for acquisition thereof as well as incom...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Sanjer Ali and ors. Vs. Bibi Hasina Khatoon and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. The revision application is directed against the order dated 25.9.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge- Ist, Munger in Title Suit No. 46 of 1961, by which the objection petition of the petitioners dated 18.9.2006 was disposed of directing the office to ask the Pleader Commissioner to ascertain and carve out a separate Takhta of the respective parties.The short facts leading to the impugned order are that in the year 1961 Title Suit No. 46 of 1961 was filed. The hairs of plaintiff Sk. Md. Yusuf alias Gafoor are opposite party Nos. 6 to 20 in the present matter. In the said suit the properties were delineated in three Schedules of the plaint: Schedule-1 relating to the land and house property of Bibi Rasulan Nissa, Schedule 1(c) property of the plaint is related to Bibi Rasulan Nissa and Bibi Khodaija and Schedule-1 (b) of the plaint is the vested Zamindari interest of Bibi Rasulan Nisa.2. The suit was filed for a declaration that the deed of gift dated 18.5.195...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »