Patna Court February 2008 Judgments
Ram Prasad Poddar Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Abhijit Sinha, J.1. The Proprietor of M/S. Laxmi Drug House at Bhagalpur, the petitioner herein, has prayed for the quashing of order dated 15.2.2005 passed by Sri Saheb Kaushar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 1473(C) of 2004 whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act').2. M/S. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited(hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') through its Manager (impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2) filed the aforesaid complaint inter alia alleging that the petitioner had obtained supply of medicines amounting to Rs. 7,90, 297/- against which a cheque of same amount was issued by the petitioner. It is further alleged that when the cheque was presented it was returned with the endorsement 'Payment stopped by the Drawer', whereupon the complainant gave a legal notice but neither the goods were returned nor ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramashish Mahto Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.1. The above named appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28-6-1993 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 134 of 1986 whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years.2. Exhibit-3 is the fard beyan which is the basis of prosecution case. According to it the informant P.W. 7 received information at 6.30 a.m. on 6-8-1983 that one person had gone Janta Watch and Company, Sonbarsa for selling. A Sanaha entry No. 90 dated 6-8-1983 was recorded. P.W. 7 along with S.I. M.P. Thakur (not examined) and A.S.I. G.P. Choudhary (not examined) proceeded for that place. As soon as they reached near the Janta Watch Company one person was noticed who tried to escape but he was caught. He disclosed himself as the appellant. In course of search of the appellant in presence of two witnesse...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Ranjan Kumar @ Lalan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Abhijit Sinha, J.1. The petitioner who is one of the accused of Complaint Case No. 708(C) of 2004 has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 5.11.2004 passed therein by Sri A.L. Yadav, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur, whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 420, 406 and 504 I.P.C.2. Ashok Kumar Singh, the complainant, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint stating therein that he is the owner of a Cinema Hall running in the name and style of 'Gautam Shree' at Bhakhityarpur which the accused No. 2 had taken on lease. It is alleged that on 28.9.2001, accused No. 3, Lallan Kumar (the petitioner herein) came to the house of the complainant and informed him that he had taken the said Cinema Hall on lease from accused No. 2 but due to paucity of funds he was not able to carry out the business properly and also stated that if he gave Rs. 50,000/- to accused No. 1 (the Cinema hall) then he would pay Rs. 5000/- per...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lakhan Yadav and anr. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Abhijit Sinha, J.1. The two petitioners who along with others were impleaded as accused in Barhat P.S. Case No. 47 of 2006 are aggrieved by and have sought for the quashing of order dated 5.9.2007 whereby Sri R. Choubey, Judicial Magistrate, Jamui, on perusal of the supplementary chargesheet has found sufficient substance for the offence under Section 307 and other allied Sections of the Penal Code, 27 Arms Act and other provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act and has taken cognizance thereunder.2. The prosecution case is based on the self statement of S.I.-cum-Officer Incharge of Barhat P.S. recorded on 13.15 hours on 30.5.2006 wherein it was stated inter alia that he was on duty in Barhat Block to hold Panchayat Election in the year 2006 and while they were proceeding to Dharha Panchayat, they heard the sounds of 4-5 firings in Sukhleba village whereupon he rushed to the place and found people assembled at the booth who on seeing the police jeep started dispersing. 4-5 perso...
Tag this Judgment!The Bihar Agriculture Marketing Board Employees Association Through It ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Rajesh Balia, C.J. and Barin Ghosh, J.1. In all these writ petitions the constitutional validity of Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repeal Act of 2006') has been challenged.The petitioners, different in each writ petition, are alleging themselves to represent the interest of the persons employed at Bihar Agriculture Marketing Board, Market/Committees/Bazar Samities, the agriculturists and the Members of the Board / the Committees/Samites.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have raised number of contentions which were of various shades and colours but in substance, the contention was(A) that the impugned Act has been enacted without application of mind and a colourable piece of legislation because the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1960') had been tested and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a reasonable restriction on freedom of marketing agriculture produce...
Tag this Judgment!Randhir Bahadur Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Anwar Ahmad, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 7th July, 2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in Purnea Sadar P.S. No. 136 of 1997, G.R. No. 1076 of 1997 taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 447/34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned lawyer for the petitioners attacked the impugned order on the ground of limitation. He submits that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 29th April, 1997 whereas cognizance of the offence was taken on 7th July, 2005 i.e. after more than eight years of the date of occurrence. He submits that the section under which the cognizance has been taken is punishable to the maximum period of three years for which the limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been prescribed for three years. He, therefore, submits that cognizance of the offence in the present case has been taken after expiry of the period of limi...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Singh Vs. Director General Cum Inspector and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Navin Sinha, J.1. The petitioner, who was a police constable, is aggrieved by the order of termination of his service dated 3.7.1985, as confirmed in appeal and the memorandum against which has also been rejected. The ground for his dismissal is his unauthorized absence of 90 days.On 29.11.1982, the petitioner proceeded on earned leave for 40 days valid till 8.1.1983. On 6.1.1983 he represented for extension of leave on the ground that the construction of his house was not over.On 11.1.1983 his application for extension of leave was rejected. It is his case that the rejection was never communicated to him. He joined duty on 9.4.1983 and was placed under suspension. Departmental proceedings were initiated for unauthorized absence of 90 days. The enquiry report came to be submitted on 16.5.1985 finding him guilty.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted a medical certificate of his illness, from a Medical Officer in the government service. That ...
Tag this Judgment!Sulabh International Social Service Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. The petitioner is an organization which innovated setting up of public utility like public toilets and maintaining them.2. Considering their works, the State Government decided to direct various local bodies to give the work of construction and maintenance of public toilet to the petitioner's organization on basis of an agreement on long term basis. Accordingly, after negotiation with various municipalities in Bihar, the petitioner took up the work of repairing of old toilets constructing new toilets with grant from the Municipality and then for maintaining them on agreed terms. For this they employed a large number of persons. Once such arrangement, which was being managed by the petitioner being entrusted by the Purnea Municipality was in Purnea town. What has brought the petitioner to this Court is that without notice, without initiating any proceeding and without granting any opportunity to the petitioner to defend the arrangement with the petitioner was c...
Tag this Judgment!Devendra Thakur Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Mihir Kumar Jha, J.Heard Counsel for the parties.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has assailed the correctness of the impugned order dated 25.11.2005 passed by the Collector of Madhubani district in Misc. Case No. 138/1998-99 holding that the oral claim of the petitioner with regard to the title and possession of the land in question, plot No. 6780 & 6781 of mauza Basuki Bihari cannot be upheld especially when the land in question being a sairat (pond) having vested in the State in terms of Bihar Land Reforms Act was being settled by the State for last 30 years.2. It has to be noted that earlier also, the petitioner had moved before this Court with the same claim and this Court did not choose to decide such dispute and relegated the petitioner to approach the District Head of Revenue namely Collector of the district by its order dated 25.1.1999 in CWJC No. 607/1998 which reads as follows:The grievance of the petitioner is that the tank in question belongs to the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Ojha Vs. Mostt. Panpati Kaur and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the sole petitioner and learned Counsel for the Opposite parties.2. This Civil revision has been filed on behalf of the defendant challenging order dated 2-7-2005 by which the learned Subordinate Judge 7th, Siwan rejected his petition regarding non-maintainability of the suit due to bar imposed under Order 23, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code' for the sake of brevity) in Title Suit No. 48 of 2002.3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole original plaintiff-Opposite party for declaration that the compromise decree dated 18-1-2000 passed in Title Suit No. 331 of 1994 was illegal, without any basis, frivolous and prayed to set aside the same and pass an order of injunction against the defendants.4. The said Title Suit No. 331 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner against the Opposite party for specific performance of contract in which a compromise petition was filed on 15-4-1996 with signatures of bo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »