Patna Court November 2009 Judgments

Ashok Kumar Son of Late Yadunandan Mishra Vs. the State of Bihar Throu ...

Court: Patna

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. The petitioner was granted an arms licence in the year, 1992 and on basis thereof, with due permission, he purchased a rifle in 1995. With due permission, he sold the rifle as it was allegedly defective but kept his licence alive by getting it renewed from time to time. It is not in dispute that the licence is renewed upto 2011. In the year 2008, considering the threat perception, petitioner applied for permission to purchase a rifle on basis of the said licence which was duly renewed. Not only is the permission being refused, the petitioner has now been asked to show cause against cancellation of his licence by the impugned order of the District Arms Licensing Authority, Muzaffarpur by the letter dated 24.10.2008. Petitioner filed his show cause and several representations thereafter but neither he has been permitted to purchase a new fire arm nor has any final order been passed in this regard.2. Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ petition i...

Md. Islam Son of Late Md. Manan Vs. the State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Mandhata Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.2. This revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 18-7-2009 passed by the Additional Sessions judge-F.T.C-II, Bhagalpur in Cr. Appeal No. 16 of 1994, by which he has dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31-01-1994 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur in Trial No. 315/1994, G.R. No. 726/1991 in which he had convicted the petitioner under Section 414 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three years.3. Briefly stated one Md. Sakil was arrested in connection with Mojahidpur P.S. Case No. 04/1991 for the offences under Sections 307, 302, 324/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. He made some confession before the police that was recorded also and in that only he gave statement that one Sallan Mian had taken some cash and one Motor cycle from Raj Distributor, Tatarpur as ransom that was handed ov...

Murari Yadav @ Murari Rai Son of Late Surendra Rai Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Mandhata Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.2. This revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 06-10-2009 passed in Cr.AppealNo.66 of 2009/09 of 2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge-F.T.C.-VII, Sitamarhi, by which he has dismissed the appeal affirming the order dated 19-08-2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi in Riga P.S.Case No. 38/2009, G.R. No. 579/2009, Tr. No. 35/2009 in which petitioner Murari Yadav was declared major.2. Petitioner is accused in a case in which it is alleged that he along with others entered into the victim's house, committed rape upon her and set her on fire. A claim was made while it was the stage of commencement of trial that petitioner was juvenile. In enquiry set up by the Juvenile Justice Board parties are allowed to lead evidence that has been done also. Apart from oral evidence documentary evidence also produced. Petitioner was decided major by the Juvenile Justice Board, which was chall...

Ram Shreshth Singh Son of Late Alakh Singh Vs. Chulhai Singh Son of La ...

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2010(58)BLJR350

Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 6 to 8.2. The appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.2.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C. VII, Sitamarhi in Probate Case No. 11 of 2007, by which he has rejected the petition dated 17.1.2008 filed by the applicant-appellant for grant of temporary injunction against the opposite parties-respondent Nos. 6 to 8.3. The appellant had filed aforesaid probate case for grant of probate/Letter of Administration of the will dated 2.10.2005 executed by his uncle (Chacha), Ram Swarath Singh in his favour.4. The opposite parties-respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 appeared in the probate case and filed caveat/objection stating that after the death of their mother they being the three daughters of the alleged testator, Ram Swarath Singh were residing with him and used to serve him and after his death they came in possession of the entire property and the will in ...

Yogendra Mahto Son of Bishundeo Mahto and Jadu @ Jadunandan Mahto Son ...

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2010CriLJ576

Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 19.1.1998 of Shri Abdul Samad, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger by which he has convicted the two appellants for offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each failing which they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; the fine was to be paid to the informant as compensation. The appellants were also tried for the offences under Section 393 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act but were acquitted on the said charges.2. The prosecution case as laid out in the fardbeyan of P.W.3 Ram Pravesh Singh, DPC, Jamalpur GRP is that on 27.2.1996 he along with ASI Kumar Kant Jha and Constable Arbind Kumar Singh, Suresh Tiwari and Ram Prasad Ram were on escort duty on 5 JK DMU Train running between Jamalpur to Kiul. On all the stations the bogies were being checked. At Kajra Stati...

Raju Alias Rajendra Kahar Son of Late Rameshwar Kahar and ors. and Ume ...

Court: Patna

C.M. Prasad and Dharnidhar Jha, JJ.1. The two appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - I, Gaya on 27th August, 2003 in Sessions Trial No. 257 of 1994. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellants were tried for the charges under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Appellant Umesh Kahar was sentenced separately under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and as regards joint charge of the appellants, the learned trial judge held the charges brought home by the prosecution and directed the five appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 403 of 2003 to suffer R.I. for life for having committed the offences under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and further R.I. for two years for their individual convictions under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Appellant Umesh Kahar was found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was inflicted R...

Jai Krishna Singh, Son of Late Sundar Singh and Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Mandhata Singh, J.Prosecution case, in brief, is that informant was at his home on the day of incident, i.e., on 17.1.1982. In the meantime, all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. came variously armed with vala and farsa after breaking eastern wall of boundary. For accused Parshuram it is said he was in possession a bomb in his bag which was shown to the villagers to disperse them from the place of occurrence. After that none of the villagers came there. For informant it is said that he was at his home only due to closure of his Court as he was an advocate. It is further said that petitioner Jai Krishna Singh blew his farsa aiming neck of the informant which he protested by holding the stick portion of the farsa, so superficial injury appeared on the neck only.2. After conclusion of the trial judgment of conviction is passed by the Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code only against these petitioners and one Ram Chandra Singh. On the point of sen...

Bishnu Deo Narayan and Ramesh Narayan Both Sons of Late Raghu Nath Nar ...

Court: Patna

Shiva Kirti Singh, A.C.J.1. The appellants, as two co-owners, preferred CWJC No. 14676/2007 for quashing of notifications dated 23-8-2007 and 24-8-2007 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also for quashing the entire land acquisition proceeding in P.L.A, case No. 20/2006/2007 relating to acquisition of land in Mohalla Jamal Road in Patna town for construction of an approach road to connect flow of traffic to a recently constructed over bridge in the city of Patna known as Chiraiya-tanrh over bridge.2. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellants related mainly to alleged failure of the authorities to publish the notification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in accordance with amended provisions of 1984 Act and some other contentions including applicability of provisions for emergency acquisition Under Section 17 of the Act, none of which found favour with the writ court which dismissed the writ...

Kunal Deo Ranjan S/O Sri Kameshwar Mahto Vs. Union Bank of India, Depa ...

Court: Patna

V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank').2. Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Assistant Manager (Marketing) pursuant to the advertisement published by the Bank in the newspaper on 15.06.2008 as also on line at the website of the Bank. He participated in the written and the interview conducted for such appointment but failed to secure 22.5 per cent marks in the interview as he secured only 18 makes out of 50 marks for the interview and for (sic) to secure 22.5% marks in the interview he has not been selected although his aggregate is 120 although the last successful Scheduled Caste candidate has secured 115 marks in aggregate. Aforesaid information has been given to petitioner by the Bank under latter dated 8.8.2009, Annexure-8 which is impugned in this application. Learned Counsel for the petitioner with reference (sic) pleadings made in the writ petition submitted that there ...

Tufail Ahmad Khan Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) ...

Court: Patna

Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the striking off of its name from the register of Companies under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act by order dated 17.9.2007 published in the Gazette of India dated 6.10.2007.2. The main contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was ever served upon it in accordance with the requirements of Sub-sections (1) (2) & (3) of Section 560 of the Companies Act. It is further submitted that the Company is continuously carrying on its business and has, been in operation at all relevant times It is also submitted that the Company has filed its statutory returns for the financial year ending on 31.3.2006 on 5.10.2007, the day before the publication of the notification dated 25.9.2007 in the Official Gazette dated 6.10.2007. However, on 11.11.2008 the Director of the Company learnt from the Registrar of Companies that the name of his company has been struck off by the aforesaid Gazette Notification.3. In the suppleme...