Patna Court April 2009 Judgments

Kamlesh Yadav @ Doma Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Both Cr. Rev. No. 147-09 and No. 477/09 are taken up together, as in both the cases the petitioner and the opposite party are the same and they arise out of the same P.S. case, namely, Hisua P.S. Case No. 116 of 2006, dated 14.12.06 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 379 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act to which Section 302 of the I.P.C. was added later on.3. The main issue in this case is as to whether Magistrate after submission of the chargesheet and cognizance, is competent to make an enquiry with respect to identity of an accused.4. Before I deal with the issue, the facts are being noticed in brief. The informant, Kamlesh Yadav @ Doma Yadav, lodged an F.I.R. bearing Hisua P.S. Case No. 116/06, under Section 302 and other allied sections of the I.P.C. In the aforesaid F.I.R., eleven persons have been named including one Uma Yadav and Dinesh Yadav both sons of Bacchu Yadav. The police...

Ujjway Kumar, Uday Kumar (Both Minor Sons of the Deceased Surya NaraIn ...

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2524

S.N. Hussain, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by defendants-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below.2. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 04 of 1979 which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents with respect to 251/2 decimals (now 21 decimals) of C.S. Plot No. 232 (part) which is now R.S. Plot No. 495/1128 appertaining to C.S. Khata No. 2 (part) which is now R.S. Khata No. 110 of Thana No. 204 in Mouza Aminabad Semapur within Barari Police station in the district of Katihar for the following reliefs:(a) Declaration that the plaintiffs are legal heirs of Late Jharoo Sah having inherited suit property detailed in Schedule a of the plaint.Declaration that the document purported to be Will of Late Jharoo Sah was created by fraud & forgery of defendants duping Jharoo Sah to put his sign on it without understanding its nature and implication and defendants did not get any interest in the suit property on its basis.(b...

Rama Shankar Mishra Son of Ram Dayal Mishra Vs. the State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2834

ORDERSheema Ali Khan, J.1. The sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 07.01.1998 and order of sentence dated 08.01.1998 passed in G.R. Case No. 10 of 1996/07 of 1997 by which he has been convicted under Section 27(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The prosecution case in short is that the informant, who was a Probationary Assistant Sub-Inspector, with a number of other police officers was deputed to maintain law & order on the Ranchi-Tata bye-pass road. A bus bearing registration No. BR-26P/0361 was standing at the bus stand. The Police party began to check the bus and suspected that one of the passengers, a young man, was carrying an attach (small suitcase) in suspicious circumstances. On questioning, he did not w...

Dwarakadhish Agro Pvt. Ltd. a Company Registered Under the Provisions ...

Court: Patna

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. Petitioner-Company was sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 75 lakhs and a cash credit limit of Rs. 52 lakhs, vide sanction letter dated 10.10.2005 by the respondent - UCO Bank. This was to set up an industrial unit for manufacturing agro industrial products. On 1.4.2006, the unit started commercial production but because of adverse market condition it could not achieve breakthrough and as a consequence thereof defaulted in meeting its loan repayment liability. The Bank then initiated a proceeding under SARFAESI ACT but could not finalize the sale of property. On 13.3.2008 (Annexure 3), petitioner made an offer to settle both the said accounts i.e. the term loan and cash credit account. They offered to settle the entire due at Rs. 82 lakhs. Out of which they were ready to pay 25% cash down upfront and the balance within three months in equal monthly instalments free of interest or within six months the balance thereof. Nothing was then heard in positive from the B...

Smt. Anjulata Kumari, Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.C.W. J.C No. 8539 of 20082. The matter relates to an order dated 24.12.2007 communicated by another letter dated 28.3.2008 for a direction for termination of services, stoppage of her salary and the consequent termination of the services of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher in the District of Araria on the ground that the qualification held by her was of an Upshastri (Intermediate) from Kameshewar Singh Darbhanga University.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that she was appointed as a Panchayat Teacher on 4.10.2007 after undergoing selection process. He next relies upon a government instruction of 29.9.1996 that Upshastri was equivalent to Intermediate. He further places reliance on an order of this Court in CWJC No. 5863 of 2008 dated 19.1.2009 decided by this Court that termination on the ground of an Upshastri degree from Kameshewar Singh Darbhanga University was not sustain...

Rudra Nand Mishra Vs. the Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.

Court: Patna

Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent Board.2. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally by a resolution dated 30.11.1996 on the charge that materials were accepted beyond 15.1.1983 for personal wrongful gain to the petitioner and wrongful loss to the Board contrary to the Board Resolution dated 10.1.1983. The petitioner in the departmental proceeding took a specific objection that the Board's memo was never served on him.3. The enquiry report reveals that no evidence was led by the management to rebut this argument of the petitioner. The enquiry officer concluded that there was no evidence on record that the order was communicated to the petitioner. The enquiry officer, however, proceeded on a general assumption to arrive at a conclusion that a subsequent telegram dated 7.3.1983 communicated to all must have been received by the petitioner also. On this followed the order of punishment withholding 5% of pension since t...

R. Jaya Prakash @ J.P. S/O Late R.R. Nair at Present Posted as General ...

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2516

Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General No. IV for the State.2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna who while disposing of a bail application of an accused namely, Ranjeet Rai has passed an order and has directed the office to issue warrant (non bailable) against the sole named accused General Manager R. Jai Prakash alias J. P. in the concluding part of the bail order.3. Submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that this part of the order while disposing of the bail application of yet another accused is in breach of Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that the investigation in the matter is still going on. No doubt the petitioner has been made an accused but at no point of time police has filed any requisition for issuance of warrant of arrest against him. In fact, the petitioner has co-operated in the investigation and his statem...

Sanjay Kumar Singh S/O Late Dilip Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Bihar a ...

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2281

Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.7.2001 (Annexure-9), passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case No. 32 of 2000 (Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors.), in purported exercise of powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby he has rejected the revision application preferred by the present petitioner, and has refused to entertain the prayer for substitution of the heirs of the land-holder.2. The facts are not in dispute and may be indicated to the extent needed for disposal of the present writ petition. The genealogy of the parties may be set out hereinbelow:2.1. Land Ceiling proceedings under the Act were initiated against Debbala Singh, the petitioner's grand-mother. The chronology of events as provided in the writ petition may be reproduced hereinbelo...

Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Prasad Verma @ Santosh Vs. State of Bihar and ...

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2565

Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.1. Whether divorce by way of mutual consent will debar a divorced woman to receive maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is the core question in this application. Before I deal with the issue in hand the facts of the case is being noticed in brief.2. The O.P. No. 2, namely, Rinku Devi, was married to the petitioner in the year 1995 at Gaya. On account of estrenged marital life, the O.P. No. 2 had to desert her matrimonial house. In the year, 2000 the petitioner filed a matrimonial suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act being Matrimonial T.S. No. 86 of 2000. In the year, 2001 O.P. No. 2 filed a Complaint Case under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act bearing Complaint Case No. 56 of 2001. Thereafter, she filed the instant maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2001, being Misc. Case No. 27 of 2001.3. The O.Ps. appeared in M. Title Suit No. 86 of 2000 and prayed that the instant case be amend...

Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar Through Cbi

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2550

ORDERI.A. No. 471 of 20091. The appellant Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav has filed the present interlocutory application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein to suspend/stay the order of conviction dated 14th February, 2008 by which he was found guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 10000 (ten thousand), in default whereof he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The above judgment and order of conviction and sentence was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge - XI, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 976 of 1999.2. The case related to the murder of one Ajit Sarkar by the accused persons in conspiracy with each other on 14th June, 1998 for which K. Hat Police Station Case No. 230 of 1998 was registered against six - seven unknown persons. The investigation of the case was transferred...