Patna Court November 2009 Judgments

Saraswati Devi W/O Mahendra and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and

Court: Patna

Mandhata Singh, J.1. Heard Both the parties.2. The Revision application is filed against the order dated 28.11.2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Motihari in Complaint Case No. 269 of 2001.3. One Pinki Kumari, daughter of Mahendra Singh was killed in between the night of 5/6.05.2000. This complaint is filed making accusation against these petitioners with a further allegation that a false Police Case was instituted also investigated with wrong conclusion. Villagers as well as Opposite Party No. 2 placed the real fact before the I.O. to the effect that complainant and her daughter deceased were working in the house of the petitioner, Sonu Singh. Deceased became pregnant and abortion was attempted on behalf of the petitioner, Sonu Singh and others. In that course, she was killed after pressing her neck and after her death, dead body was kept behind the bathan of complainant. The Doctor found that the deceased was carrying four months pregnancy and four inch woo...

islam Ansari @ Islam Son of Abbas Ansari Vs. the State of Bihar Throug ...

Court: Patna

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. By the present application, the petitioner seeks an appropriate writ and/or direction to the respondents not to hold elections for the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Patharbadi, Block - Jokihat, district - Araria which was scheduled to be held on 18.03.2009 and for issuance of a writ directing that the petitioner be allowed to function as Mukhiya of the said Panchayat. The writ application was filed on 16.03.2009 and was taken up For Admission on 17.03.2009 where, while adjourning the matter for counter affidavit to be filed, election to the post of Mukhiya, as notified by notification dated 24.02.2009, was stayed. Subsequently, interlocutory applications for intervention was filed which were allowed. The interveners were people who had intended to contest the said elections and had filed nomination papers and taken other steps in the matter. Intervention was allowed on 29.04.2009. Thereafter, counter affidavits were filed by the interveners, the State a...

Rama Kant Tiwary Son of Late Deo Nandan Tiwary and Bijendra Prasad Sin ...

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2010(58)BLJR354

V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, State as also counsel for the Gandak Command Area Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as 'the Agency').2. Petitioners in the two writ applications were initially appointed as surveyors in the agency vide order dated 13.11.1975 contained in Annexure 1 series in C.W.J.C. No. 9943 of 2009. Having completed ten years and more of satisfactory service as surveyor they were allowed to officiate as junior engineer in their own pay scale of surveyor. While they were so officiating the agency decided to revert them to the post of surveyor. The order of reversion was challenged before this Court by the Karmchari Sangh of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3037 of 2004, which was disposed of under orders dated 13.12.2006, Annexure-4 in C.W.J.C. No. 9943 of 2009 directing the Board of Directors of the agency to consider the promotion of surveyor(s) on the post of junior engineer and to take independent decision in the matter. In compl...

Md. Imran Son of Peer Gulam, Proprietor of Imran and Co. Vs. the State ...

Court: Patna

Reported in: II(2010)BC243,2010(58)BLJR362

Sheema Ali Khan, J.1. By these two applications, the petitioner who is the proprietor of M/s Imram and Co. having its office at 37/2, Parade Poultry Market, Police Station Kotwali, Kanpur has challenged the order dated 10.03.2008 by which the Judicial Magistrate, Patna has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Section 422 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case Nos. 2364(C) and 2363(C) of 2007 on the ground that the Courts at Patna did not have the territorial jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry and trial at Patna under Section 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The facts are that the complainant- M/s Amricon Agrovet (P) Ltd. is a registered company under the Companies Act and has its office at Fraser Road, Patna. The company promotes the business of production and selling of poultry feeds. The petitioner No. 1 is the company and the petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor o...

Raghunandan Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

J.N. Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.2. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order, as contained in Memo No. 1509 dated 30.6.2005, passed by the then In-charge Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur, annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application, by which services of the petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect and petitioner has been asked to show-cause as to why a police case be not lodged against him for producing a forged appointment letter. The order shows that, in compliance to the directions of the Chief Secretary, as contained in two letters, for enquiry into the validity of the appointments made after 1.1.1980, the case of the petitioner was enquired into. It mentions that the records and the documents produced by the petitioner, specially copy of the letter No. 92 dated 9.9.1991 purported to have been issued from the office of the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani, were examined. He fou...

Sandhya Kumari Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.2. In CWJC No. 14407 of 2009, it is the original charge memo which has been challenged. The supplementary charges in the pending departmental proceedings are the subject matter of challenge in CWJC No. 14323 of 2009.3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been suspended on 13.1.2009. Her headquarters have been kept at Patna but the departmental proceeding is being conducted at Gaya. She has not been paid her subsistence allowance and is, therefore, unable to effectively participate in the departmental proceeding.4. Learned Counsel for the State submits that unless the petitioner reports at the headquarters and signs attendance, she cannot claim subsistence allowance.5. The issue of reporting at the headquarters and signing attendance as a prerequisite for payment of subsistence allowance, in the mind of this Court cannot be equated. If a delinquent does not report at the headquarters during the period of suspen...

Satyendra Kumar, Son of Raj Narayan Kumar, Vs. the State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2010CriLJ1134

Mandhata Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.This revision application has been filed against the. judgment dated 10.08.2009 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2008 by the Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua, by which he has dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhabua, on 17.06.2008 in G.R. No. 715/1998, Tr. No. 342/2008, in which learned Magistrate has convicted all the petitioners and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for two months.2. Prosecution case in brief is that the informant of this case who was in usual vehicle checking intercepted a Jeep bearing No. BR-1P-5425 in which accused Kamla Kant Mandal, Satyendra Kumar, Vimleshwar Rai, Dharmnath Yadav, Amar Nath Ojha and Ashok Kumar alias Sadhu were the occupants. Accused Satyendra Kumar was found in possession of one D.B.B.L. gun with ...

Bharat Prasad Singh Son of Late Achhe Lal Singh Vs. the State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Sheema Ali Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.02.2006 by which cognizance has been taken under Section 133 of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code in Sadar Lalganj Police Station Case No. 225 of 2005.3. The allegation in the First Information Report is that at about 11:45 AM, a black sumo vehicle bearing registration No. BR-06D-2052 was moving with a blckcolour flag carrying 4-5 persons. The informant stopped the vehicle and asked the driver to produce the documents showing that the vehicle has permission to be used for the purposes of campaign in the election. The driver is said to have pointed towards the front glass of the vehicle and stated that the permission was stuck on the glass. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the informant has instituted a case, arrested the driver of the...

Jagnnath Singh Vs. Bihar State Bar Council and ors.

Court: Patna

Reported in: AIR2010Pat17

ORDERNavaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate of this Court of some standing. He has challenged the State Bar Council elections on the ground that his voting right has been denied to him because of a mistake committed by the State Bar Council, which vitiates the election process itself. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are thus:2. Petitioner is an Advocate whose name was there on the State Bar Council rolls. Under the provisions of the Advocates Act no person can act as an Advocate or appear in that capacity before any Court or Authority or Tribunal unless he is enrolled as such either before any State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India. Thus, for carrying out the profession of an Advocate enrollment with the State or All India Bar Council is a pre-condition. State Bar Council and Bar Council of India has its Managing Committee, elections to which are held as envisaged under the Advocates Act and the Rules framed thereunder. For the purposes of...

Surya Nandan Prasad Son of Sri Ram Keshwar Ram, Vs. the State of Bihar ...

Court: Patna

Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J.1. L.P.A. No. 300 of 2008 has been preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna by the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 2819 of 2007 Surya Nandan Prasad and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. and is aggrieved by the order dated 14.8.2007, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the order dated 9.9.2004 (Annexure-1/6), whereby respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have been confirmed as Inspector of Factories (Medical), in the Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, has been upheld. It is further directed against the order dated 7.4.2009 (Annexure-I/7 to I.A. No. 3093 of 2009), passed by the State Government, in the Department of Labour and Employment, passed during the pendency of the present appeal, whereby the objection of the appellants as to the validity of the said order dated 9.9.2004 has been rejected.2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. Res...