Patna Court April 2007 Judgments
Brijnandan Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-04-2007
Abhijit Sinha, J.1. All these five appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order of sentenced dated 19.11.92 passed by Sri. A. Toppo, the then Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Barh (Patna) in Sessions Trial No. 119 of 1995 arising out of Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 259 of 1983. By the impugned Judgment and order all the appellants have been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and each of them have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years end appellant No. 4, Madan Singh has further been convicted under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded R.I. for three years. The sentences were to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is based on the written report submitted by informant, Ashok Kumar Singh, P.W.4. According to the informant at about 4.45 A.M. on 15.12.1983 while he was taking tea at his Darwaja he saw all the five appellants alongwith one Krishnandan Singh (since deceased) variously armed with rifle, gun and pistol and heard accused Brijnan...
Tag this Judgment!Reeta Kumari Vs. Anish Ranjan
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-04-2007
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party.2. The petitioner has filed this civil revision application against the order dated 30.8.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Misc. Case No. 2 of 2003, by which the amendment petition dated 29.3.2005 for amendment of the rejoinder petition dated 3.1.2004 of the opposite party has been allowed.3. The present matter has a chequered history. Earlier, Matrimonial Suit No. 207 of 2001 was filed by the opposite party, which was decreed ex parte on 6.9.2002. The petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 2 of 2003 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree. In Misc. case, the claim of the petitioner was that she had learnt about the ex parte decree of divorce on 31.1.2003 from the father of the opposite party, who is a practising Doctor, at his Clinic situa...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Soma Pathak Vs. State and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-04-2007
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. Heard.2. By registered sale deed the petitioner had purchased some lands. The private-respondent No. 4 alleging that he was an existing adjoining raiyat sought to pre-empt this purchase and filed an application in this regard before the respondent-D.C.L.R. Bhagalpur, in terms of Section 16(3) of the. Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. While filing the said application it is provided by the rules in respect thereof that he must deposit the consideration amount plus ten percent and annex a receipt thereof to his application. Further he must notice the vendor and vendee by registered post and must annex proof thereof. Admittedly, these two things were not complied with. Petitioner, being the vendee, on being noticed, objected to the pre-emption application. Objection was that the respondent had only disclosed that he had purchased certain adjoining lands but the details of purchase was not given. The claim of the re...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dhani Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-04-2007
S.K. Katriar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.12.2002 (Annexure 6), passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya, in the capacity of the appellate authority, whereby he has rejected the petitioner's appeal, and has upheld the order of punishment dt. 15.9.2001 (Annexure 4), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the services of the Bihar Government.2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner had joined the Bihar Police Force in 1988 as a Constable. While he was so posted in the Aurangabad Police Lines, he was served with charge-sheet dated 7.2.97 (Annexure 1), levelling five charges against him. He was subjected to a departmental proceeding in which he participated. The learned Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The petitioner was issued with second show-cause notice to which he had shown cause. On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned disciplin...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Gupta Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of same judgment, therefore, they have been heard together and shall be governed by this common judgment.2. Originally there were two appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 2002 but on account of death of appellant No. 1. Saraswati Devi, during the pendency of this appeal, her appeal has already abetted as recorded in the order dated 14.3.2007. Now the sole appellant in this appeal is Raju Gupta who is younger brother of sole appellant in the other appeal. Uma Shankar Gupta. By the impugned judgment and order dated 22.4.2002 passed by learned 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 9/2000/52/ 2000 both the appellants have been convicted for the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for which they have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000 each and in default further rigorous imprisonment for one year. They have been further convicted under Section 498A/34 of the IPC and ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeev Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. The petitioner by this writ application has challenged the orders issued from the Board of Revenue under the signature of the Secretary, Board of Revenue whereby purporting to act in pursuance to the amendment to Section 16(3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, as made by the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2006 [Bihar Act 10, 2006] as published in the Bihar Gazette (Extra Ordinary) dated 4.5.2006, all revision applications pending before the Board of Revenue which had been filed in matters arising from Section 16(3) of the Act under Section 32 thereof to be transferred to the Divisional Commissioners. In other words, all revision applications before the Board of Revenue in relation to pre-emption matters have been directed to be transferred to the Divisional Commissioners for final disposal.2. The matter was heard and on behalf of the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Shivam Traders and ors. Vs. the Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
S.N. Hussain, J.1. 03.04.2007 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3, namely, the Bank of Baroda and its authorities as well as learned Counsel for the private respondent No. 4, who was subsequently impleaded as he happens to be auction purchaser from the Bank.2. This writ petition is for quashing auction sale dated 11.11.2006 made by the respondent first set in favour of respondent No. 4 with respect to secured asset, namely, land and building of the petitioners bearing Plot No. 296 (measuring 3 kathas 10 dhurs) under Khata No. 3 in Tauzi No. 5316/258 within Thana No. 9 appertaining to Circle No. 251 of, Ward No. 34, in Mauza Sheikhpura under Shastrinagar Police Station in the district of Patna and also for commanding the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the aforesaid premises and accept the petitioners' offer for re-payment of the alleged dues of the respondent-Bank, for which the afor...
Tag this Judgment!Parmatma Bind Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Sadanand Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application for quashing the order dated 27.5.2004 and entire consequential proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 85A of 1984 pending in the Court of Sri E.N. Prasal, Fast Track Court, Munger.2. Prosecution case is that Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Suresh Mandal, had given a written statement before the Sub-Inspector of Bariyapur police station on 18.8.1981 alleging therein that while his uncle, Lakhan Mandal and co-villager Bala Mandal were working at their field on 17.8.1981, the accused persons came there and abducted the aforesaid persons for murder. Thereafter a case was instituted under Sections 364/34 of the I.P.C. Charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner along with other seven accused persons. The police papers, in compliance with the mandate of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allegedly were never supplied to the petitioner.3. The case of the petitioner is that the case had been committed to the Court of Sessions vide Se...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bihar Vs. Birendra Yadav and Binod Yadav
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and Abhijit Sinha, JJ.1. Capital punishment inflicted on the two accused, namely, Birendra Yadav and Binod Yadav by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 379 of 1999 has necessiated this reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The two accused aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence have preferred appeal which has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 692 of 2004.2. Both reference and the appeal were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. Prosecution started on the basis of the statement given by P.W.6 Ramashish Yadav before the Sub-Inspector of Police of Pirpainti Police Station on 5.8.1998. The aforesaid statement was given by the Informant in a Sugarcane field where the dead body of his daughter Nilam Kumari was lying. According to the informant on 4.8.1998 he had gone to his house at 7'o clock in the morning in connection with some dome...
Tag this Judgment!Mojibur Rahman Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Barin Ghosh, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the right of the Special Officer cum Administrator, Kisanganj Agriculture Produce Market Committee to settle certain Hat consequent to the repeal of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 by the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006. It is submitted that after the Market Act was repealed, the respondent had no jurisdiction to bid settlement of the Hat and Bazar and, that too, in respect of realisation of ground rent. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. The private respondent has appeared and filed a counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit and a preliminary objection has been raised by the private respondent.2. Parties have been heard and with their consent, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.3. A public notice was issued by the Special Officer-cum-Administrator of Kisanganj Market Committee (since dissolved) for settlement of various Hat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »