Patna Court September 2007 Judgments
Manju Tiwary Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-28-2007
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. As State has appeared and filed counter-affidavit and produced original records relating to the case in question, with the consent of parties, this writ application was heard at length and is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are briefly stated as hereunder:One Smt. Pramila Upadhya executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of a plot of land at Kalyani Colony, Saket Vihar. Anisabad, district-Patna. This was presented for registration before the respondent District Sub Registrar, Patna for registration on or about 2-2-1998. This deed was scribed on a stamp paper of Rs. 5000/-. Apparently, the District. Sub Registrar being of the opinion that the correct stamp duty payable was Rs. 19,530/- and, as, such, there was a deficit stamp duty of Rs. 14,530/-. He, accordingly, impounded the instrument and forwarded the same to the Deputy Collector (Stamp), Incharge Legal Section, Patna Collector...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Yadav and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-28-2007
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 12.6.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Ara in Sessions Trial No. 290/92 whereby appellant No. 1, Hiralal Yadav, has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and appellants No. 2 to 5, namely, Kamta Yadav, Kashinath Yadav, Bhim Yadav and Ajodheya Yadav have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The all have been awarded imprisonment for life for the aforesaid offence. They have also been convicted under Section 148 of the IPC but no separate sentence has been awarded for that offence.2. The prosecution is based upon Fardbeyan of Ramji Yadav (PW 6), a nephew of Ramayan Yadav (deceased), recorded on 16.11.1991 at 10.30 am. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 16.11.1991 at about 9.00 am, appellant Ajodheya Yadav armed with a Lathi and the other 4 appellants armed with B...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Dayal Roy Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Mridula Mishra, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2 This application has been filed for quashing Resolution, dated 16.07.1996, contained in Memo No. 7835, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. Further, prayer is for commanding respondents 1 to 4 to give five increments with consequential financial benefits due on 05.01.1992 to 05.01.1996 and to pay full salary, along with increments, for the period 09.01.1992 to 16.09.1995 after deducting the subsistence allowance paid during suspension.3. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant District Prosecutor on 16.03.1973. New Criminal Procedure Code came into force on 01.04.1974 whereby nomenclature of Assistant District Prosecutor was changed to Assistant Public Prosecutor and the control of the Police Department on the services of Assistant Public Prosecutor was removed. In spite of the amendment in the Criminal Procedure Code the State Government was not notifying the necessary amendment ...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Bihari Singh Vs. the Bihar State Financial Corporation Through It ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Barin Ghosh and Anwar Ahmad, JJ.1. On the ground that an Officer junior to the appellant has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the appellant, a round of battle ensued in between the appellant and the employer Corporation in this Court, which was decided against the appellant. Subsequent thereto, the appellant pressed the selfsame writ petition challenging the whole enquiry proceedings including the suspension order, the chargesheets and the enquiry report. The principal ground of challenge was that the decision to suspend and chargesheet the appellant was at the instance of the State of Bihar and, therefore, not an independent decision of the employer Corporation. During the pendency of the writ petition, the order of dismissal came, which also formed part of the challenge in the writ petition. The writ petition having been dismissed by the order under appeal, the appellant is before us.2. The short facts of this case are that the emplo...
Tag this Judgment!Manoranjan Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Mihir Kumar Jha, J.1. In this case, by order dated 08.11.1996, notices were ordered to be issued on the Complainant (Opposite Party No. 2). The Opposite Party No. 2, however, despite service of notice, has not chosen to appear in this case.2. This application is directed against the order, dated 10.07.2006 whereby and whereunder the Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in Fatuha P.S. Case No. 258 of 2004 has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for their discharge as envisaged power to exercise under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Counsel for the petitioner has made a very short submission inasmuch as it is contended that a petition setting out the materials and grounds seeking the relief of discharge was filed before the Court below but from the impugned order, it would transpire that the same has been rejected mechanically without application of mind. In this regard, it has been contended that there are materials to show that from the joint bank account of Kedar Roy an...
Tag this Judgment!Sipahi Rawat Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Mihir Kumar Jha, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22.7.2005, passed in Complaint Case No. 1872 of 2003, Trial No. 1741 of 2005, whereby the Court below has issued summons to the accused persons including the petitioner for facing trial for the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) . The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Court dated 7.8.2005, passed in Cr. Rev. No. 352 of 2005/17 of 2005, affirming the order of the court below, dated 22.7.2005.2. In this case notices were issued to the opposite party No. 2, the complainant, by an order, dated 5.1.2007 and further proceedings in the Complaint case had been stayed. Despite service of notice on the Opposite Party No. 2, no one has appeared on his behalf.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. From the materials on record, it is apparent that there is an allegation of cheating against the petitioner and other persons. The case of the opposite party No....
Tag this Judgment!Valmiki Prasad Singh, Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Mihir Kumar Jha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.9.2006, passed in Complaint Case No. 2027C/05 by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, whereby and whereunder, having taken cognizance under Sections 323 and 504/36 of the Indian Penal Code (In short 'the Code'), he has issued process against petitioner No. 1, father-in-law, and petitioner No. 2 mother-in-law and also petitioner No. 3, brother-in-law (Bhaisur).3. This is a case of typical nature where the complainant opposite party No. 2, the wife, has alleged that even when she was being well maintained by her husband Nishant, it is the petitioners and other family members of her husband who were ill-treating her. As a matter of fact, the allegations having been made in the petition of complaint with regard to demand of dowry and/or keeping the belongings of the opposite party No. 2 complainant, have not been substantiated in course of inqu...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ballav NaraIn Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
M. Saran, J. 1. Cr. Appeals No. 219 of 2004 and 202 of 2004 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. These two appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order of conviction dated 31.3.2004 passed by Sri Satendra Kumar Pathak, Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Patna in Session Trial No. 376/1998 whereby and whereunder he convicted the appellants Under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short as IPC) and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I for 10 years and also to undergo R.I for four months Under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I for one month. The sentences, however, have been ordered to run concurrently.3. The prosecution case, in short, is that informant, Rajesh Kumar Sinha, lodged a written report on 19.12.1996 before Officer-in-Charge, Shastrinagar police station alleging therein that his sister Indu was marr...
Tag this Judgment!Gandak Command Area, Development Agency and ors. Vs. State of Bihar an ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
Narayan Roy and Madhavendra Saran, JJ.1. Heard counsel for the parties.Both these appeals since arise out of a common order, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. Two sets of writ applications were filed by the contesting respondents challenging the order of their termination by the appellants authorities. All the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 9129/2006 were working as Treasury guards whereas two writ petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 8555/2006 were working as Soil Samplers.3. According to the case of the writ petitioners, they were working under Gandak Command Area Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as the Agency) on the post of Treasury Guards and Soil Samplers since last twenty five years and when their services were found to be satisfactory, they were regularised and benefits of promotions were also given to them but all of a sudden, they were terminated without any rhyme or reason.4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the w...
Tag this Judgment!Rampari Devi Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.2. Husband of the petitioner served as Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department of the State Government. He was visited with two punishment orders dated 28.4.1989 and 17.8.1996, where under he was awarded punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, besides the entry of censure in the service record for the year 1989-90 and no salary beyond the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. Petitioner challenged the two punishment orders by filing C.W.J.C. No. 11845 of 1999 on 4.12.1999. Another Bench of this Court under orders dated 2.3.2005, passed in the said writ case, directed that the said writ case be confined to the orders dated 28.4.1989 with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his grievance with regard to the order dated 17.8.1996 in a separate proceeding.3. The present writ application has been filed assailing the said order dated 17.8.1996, which is contained in Anne...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »