Patna Court August 2011 Judgments
Godhan Ram, Son of Late Jagdeo Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant no. 1, Godhan Ram has been convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further convicted under Section 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act and 2 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. Appellant no. 2 Tulshi Ram has been convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further convicted under Section 325 I.P.C. for four years. However, appellant nos. 3 to 11 have already been given benefit of doubt under Section 360 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants however contends that a lenient view may be taken as it is a case and counter case. 4. However, taking into consideration the fact that occurrence is of the year 1989 and appellant nos. 1 and 2 have remained in jail after conviction from 21. 08. 1998 to 15. 09. 1998. 5. Hence in the interest of justice shall meet by senten...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant No. 1, Ram Lal Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and Appellant No. 2 Pramod Singh alias Chutus singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 3. The prosecution case as alleged by the informant Bhudeo Prasad Yadav that he heard the sound of cry and then family members ran there and saw his nephew Sunil Yadav fallen injured state. He disclosed that Ram Lal Singh and Pramod Singh have assaulted by Hasua and Pathria. Thereafter, he got unconscious till today of Fardbeyan. There is injury on his ear, nose, mouth and neck. On the basis of Fardbeyan, F.I.R. was lodged. After investigation, charge sheet submitted. On submission of the charge sheet, cognizance taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the charge was framed under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Manoranjan Prasad @ Manoranjan Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Bihar and ors
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2. Keep it on record. The writ application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding arising out of Bihta P.S. Case No. 178 of 1998 registered on 1 st of September 1998 for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Petitioner is being prosecuted in this case for the alleged violation of the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (License Unifications) order 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "Unification Order") for running the business of pulses without any valid license. 3. Mr. N.K. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there could not be any violation under the provision of the aforesaid Unification Order, 1984 for the simple reason that the said order does not prescribe any license for running the business of pulse. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to refute the submission...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Vadiwala @ Dinesh Badiwala Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. This application has been directed against the order dated 21.9.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Case No. 1412(2) of 2001 by which the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. 2. The facts giving rise to the present case is that a written complaint dated 17.9.2001 was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate by Sub-Inspector of Police, Gandhi Maidan Police Station alleging therein that during the course of enquiry of an application dated 27.4.2001 filed by Anupam Priyadarshi it transpires that Anupam Priyadarshi was subjected to criminal intimidation by Mr. Ranjit Sahay, Advocate, Patna High Court by his legal notice dated 24.3.2001 written on behalf of the petitioner. Various documents were filed by Mr. Anupam Priyadarshi before the police including the notice dated 24.3.2001 written by Mr. Ranjit Sahay, Advocate and application of Anupam Priyadarshi dated 27.4.2001 (annexure - 1 series). Le...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. On repeated calls no one appears on behalf of the appellant. 2. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Advocate appears and prays that he may be permitted to appear in this case as Amicus Curiae. 3. Prayer is allowed. 4. The appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 5. The order of conviction and sentence recorded on the basis of evidence recorded by his predecessor. 6. However having regard to the fact that proceeding under Essential Commodities Act is the summary proceeding and only substance of evidence are required to be recorded by the Presiding Officer of Special Court. Hence order of conviction and sentence cannot be recorded on the basis of evidence recorded by the predecessor without recalling the witnesses. 7. However, evidence of witnesses has not been recorded by the Presiding Officer. Hence, order of...
Tag this Judgment!Dularchand Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants however, contends that occurrence took place with regard to taking toddy and there is allegation of assault against Dehal Ram by lathi. There is injury found by the Doctor, though, in the Fardbeyan there is mentioned that these appellants were order giver, but there is no evidence that they were order giver and hence order of conviction and sentence recorded by the lower court is not sustainable. 4. However, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W. 3, Pancho Devi, the occurrence took place for taking toddy and deceased has given stick blow to Dehal Ram for which occurrence took place Dehal Ram gave lathi blow to deceased. Role attributed to Dehal is substantiated but no specific role attributed to other appellants. H...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kumar Thakur Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. On repeated calls no one appears on behalf of the appellant. 2. Mrs. Rina Sinha, Advocate appears and prays that she may be permitted to appear in this case as Amicus Curiae. 3. Prayer is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been convicted under Section 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, Doctor and I.O. have not been examined and a compromise petition has been filed which is marked as Ext. 1/1 as well as P.W. 1 has stated that they have compromised and has also signed on sulahnama. 5. Having regard to the facts that parties are compromised and Section 323 and 324 of I.P.C. are compoundable and hence offence is compounded. Hence, order of conviction and sentence recorded by the lower court is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed in view of compromise arrived in between the parties. Patna High Court, ( Gopal Prasad, J.) The 3rd August, 2011....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›