Patna Court November 2009 Judgments

Dharm Nath Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar

Court: Patna

C.M. Prasad and Dharnidhar Jha, JJ.1. The eleven appellants before us were put on trial by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 380 of 1989 for charges under Sections 302 and 149 or the Penal Code and, by the judgment of conviction dated 14.8.2008, were held guilty of committing the above offences. While passing sentences against the appellants on 18.8.2003 the learned Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court-III, Saran at Chapra directed each of the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. No sentence of fine was imposed on any of the appellants. The appellants have questioned their conviction and the quantum of sentence before us through the present appeal.2. The deceased of the case, namely, Smt. Ram Kali Devi is also the informant of the case. She appears making a statement in a field, which appears a bone of contention between the parties. The deceased stated in her fardbayan recorded on 2.12.1988 at 16 hours (4 P.M.) that she was getti...

Kum Kum Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2010(58)BLJR331

Mridula Mishra, J.1. The petitioner completed her training of A.N.M. course in the year 1991. She was appointed by letter vide Memo No. 568 dated 20.7.1994 issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhepura, on the vacant post of Lady Health Worker, as she fulfilled requisite qualification, for appointment to the post. She gave her joining on 21.7.1994 at Additional Primary Health Centre, Gwalpara. Just four months after her appointment, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhepura, issued a letter vide memo No. 1423 dated 7.11.1994, whereby petitioner along with 12 other persons were terminated from service, on the ground, that appointments were illegal and made contrary to the Government Circular and reservation policy. In compliance of the Civil Surgeon's order, the Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Gwalpara issued termination order dated 9.11.1994 contained in Memo No. 319 terminating services of petitioner and 11 other persons. The terminatio...

Ran Vijay Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the State.2. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Deputy Director, Health Services and the Circle Officer, Aurangabad. The counter affidavit of the Deputy Director, which is completely noncommittal and evasive, casts a responsibility on the Revenue and Land Reforms Department. The latter has not considered it necessary to file any affidavit.3. Learned State Counsel acknowledges that he represents both the Departments. Whether it be one wing of the State or another, this Court is not the agency for coordination between them.4. The counter affidavit of the Circle Officer, Aurangabad states that the Joint Director, Health Services had rejected the claim for reimbursement of medical expenses as prior permission was not obtained before going to a private Hospital. It then reiterates the counter affidavit filed in the writ application. The counter affidavit filed in the writ application reiterates abse...

Shabina Khatun @ Shamina Khatun and Vs. State of Bihar and

Court: Patna

Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner No. 4 has appeared in person and argued the case. He has prayed for quashing order taking cognizance dated 19.4.2003 passed by J.M. 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 395(c) of 2000 dated 26.2.2002 under Sections 498(A) and 313 of the I.P.C. and summoning them to face trial3. The complainant. Fatima Khatun. stated that she was married to Md. Azam Ansari on 5.12.1999 at Phulwarisharif, Patna and a child was born out of their wedlock. After marriage all the accused persons harassed the complainant for non-fulfilment of demand of colour T.V. Fridge and motor cycle. The complainant in course of treatment went to Bhatinda. Punjab with her husband.4. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.4.2003 taking cognizance of offence under Sections 323 and 498(A) of I.P.C. on the following grounds. He states that on the date of filing of the complaint O.P. No. 2 was divorced and as such she could not ...

Shabina Khatun @ Shamina Khatun, Vs. State of Bihar and

Court: Patna

Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner No. 4 has appeared in person and argued the case. He has prayed for quashing order taking cognizance dated 19.4.2003 passed by J.M. 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 395(c) of 2000 dated 26.2.2002 under Sections 498(A) and 313 of the I.P.C. and summoning them to face trial.3. The complainant. Fatima Khatun stated that she was married to Md. Azam Ansari on 5.12.1999 at Phulwarisharif, Patna and a child was born out of their wedlock. After marriage all the accused persons harassed the complainant for non-fulfilment of demand of colour T.V. Fridge and motor cycle. The complainant in course of treatment went to Bhatinda. Punjab with her husband.4. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.4.2003 taking cognizance of offence under Sections 323 and 498(A) of I.P.C. on the following grounds. He states that on the date of filing of the complaint O.P. No. 2 was divorced and as such she could not ...

Mahanth Rameshwar Das Tyagi Vs. the Bank of India and ors.

Court: Patna

Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Bank of India and the intervenor respondent.2. In the instant application, the petitioner prays for directing the respondent Bank of India to honour the agreement and to pay the rent of the premises of the Ram Janki Mandir which is in the district of Siwan to him. He has also prayed for quashing of Annexurre-8 whereby the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of India, refused to accept the demand of the petitioner to make payment of monthly rent to it and in such circumstance he is depositing the rent in its Esc. Account. Late Raja Ram Kishore Prasad Narayan Singh of Maksudpur Quila had properties in the different districts of State of Bihar including Gaya and Siwan. He constructed a Ram Janki Temple in village-Chainpur in the district of Siwan on Plot No. 1370 pertaining to Khata No. 862. Subsequently he donated the entire land of the aforesaid plot in favour of Ram Janki Mandir. In the revisional survey khatiyan the a...

Dr. Sunita Jaiswal W/O Dr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs. the State of Biha ...

Court: Patna

Mandhata Singh, J.1. No one appears on behalf of the appellant.2. In brief negligence of appellant was reported by Opposite Party No. 2 by filing Complaint Case No. 124 of 1998. The Investigating Officer found the allegation false and submitted the final form. The allegation was to the effect that complainant's daughter-in-law was admitted to the appellant's dispensary for delivery. Every assurance was given on her behalf to have care of the patient but complainant and his family members approached the Opposite Party No. 2 at about 12.00 O'clock in mid night and onwards several times, when labour pain was reported by the patient, giving every assurance Doctor, Opposite Party No. 2 did not come to Nursing Home though Nurse and compounder remain present there.3. Complainant and other witnesses examined which according to the learned Magistrate were not sufficient for making out any case of negligence. So, complaint petition was dismissed but the same was challenged in Revision No 281 of ...

Usha Choudhary Wife of Sri Ganesh Prasad Choudhary Vs. the Bihar State ...

Court: Patna

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the revised punitive bill raised on basis of Clause 16.9A of 1993 Tariff of B.S.E.B.. The challenge is simple. The petitioner with reference to the said bill which is Annexure-7 points out that the fuel surcharge has been taken at three times the rate.2. He submits that in view of Judgment of this Court in the case of Raghvendra Singh and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. since reported in 2002 PLJR 1 as affirmed by the apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and Ors. since reported in 2003 (2) PLJR 123 (SC) it has been clearly held that fuel surcharge cannot be charged as consumed units at the three times the rate under Clause 16.9A of 1993 Tariff of B.S.E.B.3. Mr. Vinay Kriti Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Board, submits that such fuel surcharge is sustainable.4. I have examined two decisions aforesaid. The merit of the two decisions is clear that while penal bill is r...

Vakil Prasad S/O Sri Gaurishankar Prasad and ors. Vs. the State of Bih ...

Court: Patna

Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.2. The petitioners were engaged as daily wage driver in Jehanabad Collectorate euphemistically described as 'Umidwar'. A panel of such persons expecting appointment as regular driver was prepared. They are alleged to be continuing as such from different dates as mentioned in paragraph 7 commencing from 1986 and running up to 1998.3. There shall be a presumption in law that drivers were engaged on daily wage basis when sanction for purchase of vehicle was granted for Jehanabad Collectorate. Naturally the issue of appointment of Drivers to operate the vehicle was a necessary issue for consideration. It defies common understanding that vehicles were directed to be purchased without availability of regular Drivers and sanctioned posts. Alternately, even if purchase may have been made in urgency, soon after the purchase necessary proposal for vacancy and appointment of drivers must have been initiated simultaneously. ...

Kamlesh Mishra S/O Sri Upendra Narayan Mishra, Clerk, Project Girls Hi ...

Court: Patna

J.N. Singh, J.1. Although the office order of the Director, Secondary Education, dated 21.7.2008, rejecting the recognition of services of the petitioner, was produced as Annexure-15 with the supplementary affidavit, petitioner had not challenged the same earlier in this case by proposing necessary amendments in the writ application.2. Petitioner has now filed this I.A. with a formal prayer to allow him to challenge the said Annexure-15 also. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit to it.3. Since the document was on record from before, which inadvertently petitioner had not challenged in the case earlier, this I.A. is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to challenge the said Annexure-15 also in this case.4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the private respondent No. 4.5. Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the order dated 28.11.1995, contained in memo No. 527 of the office of the Director, Sec...