Patna Court February 2008 Judgments
Usha Devi Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
S.P. Singh, J.1. Heard the petitioner, the state and the informant.Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2007, passed in Criminal Misc (Transfer) by which an application to recall criminal appeal No. 16 of 2001 was rejected by the learned Sessions judge, Buxar observing that as the hearing of appeal has already begun, he has got no jurisdiction under Section 409(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') to recall the aforesaid appeal from the court of learned Addl. Sessions judge. Buxar which being not maintainable, was dismissed.2. The fact of the case in short is that the complainant/petitioner Usha Devi filed a complaint under Section 498A of the penal code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was sent to the concerned police station for institution of case under Section 156(3) of the Code. In course of trial accused parties were convicted by the trial court under Section 498A of the penal code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Opp. parties wen...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Thakur and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-25-2008
Sudhir Kumar Katriar and Kishore K. Mandal, JJ.1. This appeal has been preferred in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court. The appellants are the pre-emptors and are aggrieved by judgment dated 28.7.1998, passed in CWJC. No. 4311 of 1997 Pawan Kumar Rai and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. whereby the orders of the authorities under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have been set aside, and his application for pre-emption in terms of Section 16(3) of the Act has been rejected, inter alia, on the ground that the purchasers became adjoining raiyats with respect to the vended plot before the application under Section 16(3) was filed. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ petition.2. A brief statement of facts is essential for disposal of the appeal. The writ petitioners (respondent Nos. 6 to 9 herein) had purchased the land in questio...
Tag this Judgment!Mandhari Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.1. Both appeals have arisen out of one judgment as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Appellants have preferred these appeals against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13-8-1993 and 17-8-1993 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 1978 whereby all the appellants have been found guilty for the offence committed under Section 395, IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight years.3. A complaint case was filed by Complainant Guruj Sahani on 28-8-1976 in which 30 persons were named as accused. Cognizance was taken on 18-2-1977 under Sections 143, 144, 427, 448, and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate for disposal. After examination of some of the witnesses by the Judicial Magistrate, a petition dated 18-7-1977 was filed by the complainant in which prayer was made to add some of the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Kamla Kant Trivedi Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Abhijit Sinha, J.1. The petitioner who has been impleaded as one of the two accused in Complaint Case No. 1224(C) of 2001 is aggrieved by order dated 27-2-2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1007 of 2006 by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Patna whereby and whereunder he has refused to set aside the order dated 21-11-2006 passed by Sri Brajesh Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, framing charge under Section 420, IPC after rejecting the petitioner's petition under Section 245, Cr. P.C.2. One Parmeshwar Thakur, the complainant, impleaded as O.P. No. 2 herein, filed the aforesaid complaint stating inter alia that he had entered into an agreement for sale of land on 4-9-1999 with the petitioner through accused No. 2, namely, Sheo Shanker Upadhyay, and that accused No. 2 demanded full consideration amount on the date of agreement for sale and in pursuance thereof he allegedly made a payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash to accused No. 1 in the presence of acc...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.1. All the above noted appeals have arisen out of one common judgment as such they have been heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment.2. The appellants have preferred these appeals against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17-7-1993 and 19-7-1993 respectively passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in Sessions Case No. 177 of 1992 whereby they have been found guilty for committing offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years.3. According to the prosecution case, a dacoity was committed at mid night at about 00.20 a.m. at Gidhour Railway Station. The information was given by the Nand Kishore Singh, Station Master of that Station. Nand Kishore Singh in his fardbeyan which was recorded at 1.20 a.m. at Gidhaur Railway Station alleged that while the informant was working on the roll of Station Master and was in the process of handing over the charge of duty to ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bihar Vs. Umesh Yadav,
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.1. Death Reference in respect of all the three appellants has been heard together with their appeal directed against judgment and order dated 5.4.2006/ 10.4.2006 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 55/06 whereby all the three appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the IPC. They have been awarded death sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC and no separate sentence has been passed for the remaining offences.2. The prosecution case at the initial stage, as mentioned in the Fardbeyan of Hari Narayan Singh (PW 8) recorded by Sub Inspector of Police, Indrajeet Baitha (PW 7) on 2.1.2006 at 5.45 pm was a simple apprehension of the informant that his son Rahul Kumar, aged 14 years went to attend the call of nature in the field situated west of Bathan, on 1.1.2006 at 7 pm but did not return in the night and even on search, he had not been traced at expected places hence he may have been k...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshaman Mandal Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Shiva Kirti Singh and Shailesh Kumar Sinha, JJ.1. The sole appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 448 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code by the judgment and order dated 19.09.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1987 arising out of Supaul P.S. Case No. 72(5) of 1981. By order dated 20.09.2003 he has been awarded life imprisonment, one year simple imprisonment and one month simple imprisonment respectively for the aforesaid offences.2. In this appeal the point arising for determination is what would be the effect of delay of about 23 days in giving information to the police of the alleged occurrence and whether such delay, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would be fatal to the prosecution case.3. According to the prosecution case, the deceased Deo Sundri Devi wife of P.W.1 was alone in her house with two infant children on 27.04.1981 at about 10 AM. Her husband had gone to supaul in connection with some...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Chandra Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
J.N. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State as well as learned Counsel for the Accountant General.2. It appears that the petitioner's pension papers were forwarded to the Accountant General for fixation of his pension. The Accountant General found some discrepancies in fixation of his pay in revised scale and therefore returned the papers to the Director, Primary Education, vide Annexure-3 pointing out the discrepancies, for taking appropriate action in the matter. Thereafter, it appears that the respondent Director examined the matter and directed the respondent, District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi for recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner without seeking any clarification. Consequently respondent D.S. 3. found 12% benefit on the pay drawn by the petitioner on higher pay scale as wrong and, thereafter, order of recovery was made from the pay of the petitioner. Pursuent to the said order recovery of a sum of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Baij Nath Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. The petitioner has a retail petroleum outlet at Pupri in the district of Sitamarhi. On instruction of the Subdivisional Officer and on basis of coupon issued from the office of the Subdivisional Officer, Pupri, the petitioner was required to supply fuel for government vehicles and generator. Petitioner on basis of the said coupon then used to submit the bills for payment but problem start then. For payment, petitioner is required to run from pillar to post and for years petitioner's payments are not made on one pretext or the other. In the present case similar is the situation.2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Collector, Sitamarhi and the Subdivisional Officer, Pupri ,District-Sitamarhi, in which the entire dues of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 2,42,065/- is admitted. The only execuse that is given is that the district authorities are in correspondence with the various departments for allotment of fund and on receipt thereof the paym...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Lakshmi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Abhijit Sinha, J.1. The three petitioners who along with others have been made to figure as accused in Complaint Case No. 2022 of 2006 have prayed for the quashing of order dated 24.4.2007 passed therein by Sri Sahgir Alam, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siwan, whereby cognizance has been taken for offences under 2. Ramchandra Prasad, the complainant, impleaded as O.P. No. 2 herein, filed the aforesaid complaint stating that 10 Kathas, 15 Dhoors of Dih Basgeet land appertaining to Khata No. 614, Plot No. 4246 was jointly recorded in the name of Lal Bahadur Lal Rudar, Ragunath Lal, Sheonath Lal and Dwarika Sahay and that Dwarik Sahay died leaving behind two sons Raghunath Lal and Sheonath Lal and Lal Bahadur Lal Rudar during his life time used to live with the sons of his brother, Raghunath Lal and died issueless whereafter the entire property was managed by Raghunath Lal and Sheonath Lal. It is said that in the family partition the aforesaid land fell in the share of Sheonath Lal o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »