Patna Court August 2007 Judgments
Phalli Sah Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. The sole appellant has preferred this anneal against the judgment of conviction dated 16.2.2006 and its order of sentence dated 18.2.2006 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah in Trial No. 25 of 2003. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 20 of N.D.P.S. Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default S.I. for six months.2. On 26.1.2003, S.I. of Beltha P.S. received a confidential information regarding carrying of ganja by a eye list in attache near Balthar village. The S.I. alongwith other police personnel proceeded in a jeep towards Balthar village. When they come near Beltha village, they saw a person on cycle with attache. He was asked to stop upon which he attempted to flee away. However, he was caught by the police alongwith cycle and attache. In presence of two independent witnesses, the attache was opened and 9 kgms. of ganja was recovered wrapped in polythin. Seizure list was prepar...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Trithani @ Balo Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Shiva Kirti Singh and Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 21.12.1987 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Case No. 402/83/44/83 whereby appellant, Suresh Kumar Trithani @ Balo and his brother-in-law, Sadhu Ram Trithani (since dead) were convicted. Two other co-accused persons were however acquitted. Sadhu Ram Trithani was appellant No. 1 earlier in this appeal but his name has been expunged because he died during the pendency of the appeal. The remaining sole appellant, Suresh Kumar Trithani has been convicted for charges under Section 302 as well as under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Act and awarded life imprisonment. He has also been convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and awarded RI for five years on that count. 2. The fardbeyan (Exhibit-1) of the informant Madan Gopal Roy (PW-1) was recorded by ASI, Rajendra Prasad of Gaya, Kotwali PS on 31.7.1983 at 1930 hours at Pilgrim H...
Tag this Judgment!Deo NaraIn Mandal Vs. Ram Chandra Mandal and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Barin Ghosh and Anwar Ahmad, JJ.1. Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is as follows:16(3)(i) When any transfer of land is made after the commencement of this Act to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred, shall be entitled, within three months of the date of registration of the document of the transfer, to make an application before the Collector in the prescribed manner for the transfer of the land to him on the terms and conditions contained in the said deed:Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the Collector unless the purchase money together with a sum equal to ten percent thereof is deposited in the prescribed manner within the said period.(ii) On such deposit being made the co-sharer or the raiyat shall be entitled to ...
Tag this Judgment!Binod Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Advocate General III have been heard in detail so that this writ petition may be disposed of at the stage of admission itself.2. Petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus seeking his release from preventive detention pursuant to order dated 22.5.2007 (Annexure-1) issued by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur under Section 12(2) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which has been confirmed by the State Government vide order dated 1.6.2007 (Annexure-2).3. Petitioner is presently in preventive jail custody at Central Jail, Bhagalpur since 22.5.2007. While in such custody, on 6.6.2007 he was served with order of the State government contained in Annexure-2 dated 1.6.2007 whereby he was informed that the State Government has approved the order of the District Magistrate dated 22.5.2007 and if the petitioner wishes then he may file his written representat...
Tag this Judgment!Kamakhaya Narayan Singh Vs. Haribansh Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. The petitioner is defendant in a suit brought by the opposite party first set. Upon notice when this defendant appeared, he filed an application questioning the maintainability of the suit in terms of Order 23 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner's challenge was on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was ostensibly a suit for declaring a compromise decree to be invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs. The petitioner; for this purpose, has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in the case of Surajdeo Bharti v. Bishwanath Sah and Ors. being 2007 (1) PLJR 275 : AIR 2007 Pat 24.2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the plea of the petitioner/defendant in the Court below has rightly been rejected and the judgment cited aforesaid has no application to the facts of the present case.3. It is no doubt well established that a compromise decree cannot be challenged except before the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Rashid Rais Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Barin Ghosh and Anwar Ahmad, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In 1991 an advertisement was published inviting applications for filling up vacant posts of Munsifs and Judicial Magistrates, which entailed holding of the 24th Bihar Judicial Service Examination. This advertisement, amongst others, provided that 122 posts so advertised shall remain reserved for candidates belonging to Other Backward Class communities. This clause, as contained in the said advertisement, was the subject matter of litigation initiated in this Court and concluded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. When the matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, an interim order was passed on 16.11.1995 whereby and under the Hon'ble Supreme Court provided, amongst others, that question of filling up the reserved posts will not arise and they shall remain in abeyance, but if after the Hon'ble Supreme court decides the issue of reservation and selections are made even thereafter and appointments are made, they wi...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj Kumar and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Mridula Mishra, J.1. The petitioners have preferred present petition praying to quash memo No. 274 dated 28.3.2005 and letter vide Memo No. 1043 dated 11.11.2005 by which they have been granted duty period leave from 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2005 and have been sanctioned duty period leave salary respectively.2. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 both were appointed on the post of 'Traversor' on compassionate ground and posted at Bihar Survey Office Guljarbagh, Patna. Petitioner-No. 1 was appointed by letter dated 29.11.1988 and the petitioner No. 2 by letter dated 25.2.1997. Petitioners' case is that after joining the service they were working in the Bihar Survey Office Guljarbagh. Suddenly a letter dated 28.3.2005 contained in Memo No. 274 was issued by the Deputy Director, Bihar Survey Office Guljarbagh, Patna whereby petitioners alongwith others were sent on leave form 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2005. This letter has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that it is arbitrary and unreasonable because...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Chandra Gupta Vs. Patna Municipal Corpn. and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-28-2007
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the part owner of certain lands. He submits that in 2003 he had instituted a partition, suit as against respondent No. 3 and others After the suit was instituted respondent No. k entered into an agreement with respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Builder') and pursuant thereto an application was filed before the Patna Regional Development Authority (PRDA) for sanction of plan for a multi story building thereon. PRDA treating respondent No. 3 and others to be the owners, sanctioned the plan. Subsequently, in 2004 an injunction application was filed in the said partition suit by the petitioner. In the said injunction application, petitioner had prayed for maintaining status quo for restraining respondent No. 3 and others from alienating the property or changing the physical feature of the property. It appears that he also filed an application before PRDA saying that the sanction of the' plan was obtained by fraud and as ...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Kumar Rajgarhis @ Pawan Rajgarhia Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-24-2007
Abhijit Sinha, J.1. Pawan Kumar Rajgarhia, the Director of M/s. Maa Annapurna Transport Agency (Pvt.) Ltd., has filed this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated August 6, 2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, in Didargunj P.S. Case No. 16 of 2004 whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 49, 31(2)(A), 33(5)(A), 31(2)(B) and 33 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act').2. One Digambar Prasad Tripathi, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Investigating Bureau, Patna Division, submitted a written report on February 25, 2004 to the officer-in-charge, Didargunj P. S., stating, inter alia, that on the directions of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna a surprise inspection was made of the godown premises of M/s. Maa Annapurna Transport Agency located at Sabbalpur and in course thereof certain irregularities in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hargovind Khaitan, Auto Syndicate
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-24-2007
1. All these cases have come up before this Court on reference being made by the Income Tax Tribunal.2. The substantial question of law which was referred to this Court reads as follows:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the Income Tax Officer on account of 'Auto-Rickshow difference' as appearing from the documents seized from the premises of the assessee?3. The short facts giving rise to these references are as follows:The business premises of the assessee was searched on 18.7.2005 on the information received by the department that the assessee was not paying taxes commensurate with income derived from the business. In course of search and seizure, several documents were seized pertaining to dealing of auto-rickshaw and the authorities came to a conclusion that there was suppression by the assessee of income to the tune of Rs. 12 lacs and odd. Accordingly, the Assessment Officer d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »