Court : Patna
S.N. Pathak, J.1. These two appeals were heard analogous because common questions of law and fact are involved, except to the extent of monetary claim in the aforesaid two appeals, and therefore, this common judgment shall dispose of both the appeals.2. The Union of India, through the General Manager, South Indian Railway, is the appellant in both the appeals. In Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 1998, the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal passed on 4th November, 1997 has been challenged. By the aforesaid order, the Railway Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 1,77,219.90, including litigation cost of Rs. 16,110.90. This compensation amount was allowed on the short delivery of the consignment of Steel Bars booked from TISCO. Ltd. in wagon No. 59367 from C.F.D., Tata, for its delivery to Metalex Agencies of TISCO. Ltd. at Cochin under FR No. 328077 dated 3.7.1989. The consignment contained 58.400 MT of Steel Bars of Rs. 4,09,968.00. In Misc. Appeal No. 23/1998, order dated 4.11.1997 passed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
I. A. Ansari, J. 1. These appeals have put to challenge the judgment, dated 07.09.2007, passed, in G. O. Case No. 05 of 2005, by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge “cum- Special Judge, Darbhanga, whereby the accused-appellants, namely, Tamanna Khan, Chanda Khatoon and Zarina Khatoon, stand convicted under Sections 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, NDPS Act) and Section 47 (c) of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915. In consequence of their conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, the accused-appellant, namely, Zarina Khatoon, stands, under the order, dated 12.09.2007, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) and, in default of payment of fine, undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For their conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, the two other accused-appellants, namely, Tamanna Khan and Chanda Khatoon, stand, under the order, dated 12.09.2007, afor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Prabhat Kumar Sinha, J.1. Quashing appliction bearing Cr. Misc. No. 2018 of 1998 has been filed by Dr. Ajay Kumar, the City Superintendent of Police, Patna at the relevant time, whereas quashing application bearing Cr. Misc. No. 8644 of 1996 has been filed by Shri Amrit Singh Nimbran. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna at the same time, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (The Code, in short) both praying therein to quash the order dated 17-9-1994 passed by Sri Birendra Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 933(C) of 1992 whereunder, after enquiry, the learned Magistrate had found that a prima facie case against the petitioners was made out under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against them, further directing the complainant to file requisites for issuance of summonses against them. Both the cases emanate from the same complaint case which was filed by Shri Giri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. The present writ application has been filed by two Associations of Truck Owners for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Transport Authority not to insist upon production of tax token for the purpose of grant on goods carriage permits under and in accordance with the provisions contained under Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Central Act' only). 2. The petitioners are registered Associations of Truck Owners. According to the statements made in the writ application, respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are not issuing permits to the truck owners unless tax tokensare produced as a proof of deposit of taxes levied under the provisions of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930 (hereinafter in short the 'State Act'). 3. The tax token is an evidence of payment of tax including the additional tax under the provisions of the State Act. According to the petitioners, the respondents are acting mala fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. In all the twenty writ applications, since common questions of law are involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed by this order.2. The writ petitioners in all the cases are owners of the motor vehicles, namely, trucks, mini-bus, tanker etc. They are aggrieved by the seizure of their vehicles by the authorities of the State of Bihar on the ground of non-payment of taxes under the Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act (for short 'the Act') as well as for violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the M. V. Act' for not possessing ownerbook, route permit, insurance certificate etc.3. The petitioners of C.W.J.C. Nos. 14613 of 2001, 15014/1991, 15543/2001, 15614/ 2001, 15633/2001, 15825/2001, 15859/ 2001, 15920/2001, 129/2002, 131/2002, 225/2002, 415/2002 and 503/2002 have the permits granted by the Transport Authorities of the erstwhile State of Bihar and they are still valid.4. The petitioners of C.W.J.C. Nos. 14981/2001 and 15730...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J.1. The six appellants have preferred the six appeals arising out of a common judgment dated 22.2.1988, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif, in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 1986/10 of 1987 (The State of Bihar v. Shailendra Mahton and five Ors.), whereby Arun Mahto alias Arun Kumar has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The remaining appellants, namely, Krishna Murari Mahton alias Krishna Murari Prasad, Shailendra Mahton alias Shailendra Prasad, Bahadur Mahto alias Interjit alias Inderjit Singh, Kaushlendra Prasad alias Kaushal Mahton, and Surendra Prasad alias Suli Mahton have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. All the six appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case is that on 7.3.1986, at 10.45 A.M., the informant Budhram Prasad (P.W.6), along with deceased Vijay Yadav got into a Rajya Transport bus bearing No. BHY 135...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. This appeal has arising out of the judgment and order dated 2.6.1992 passed the then 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 1990 convicting the appellants under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and then under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (the Act) and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code; for three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, for six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 3 of the Act and for six years rigorous imprisonment under Section 4 of the Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentence have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The case arose out of the unnatural death of Manju Mandalani of which the fardbeyan was submitted by her brother Dharnidhar Mandal (P.W. 3) on 22.5.1989 at about 8.30 P.M. The far...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the order dated 31.12.1983 passed in Revision Case No. 477 of 1980 by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Bihar (Respondent No. 4) contained in Annexure 3, whereby he has affirmed the order dated 7.3.1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Purnia (Respondent No. 3) in Misc, Petition No. 3 of 1979-80 contained in Annexure 2. By the said order dated 7.3.1980, respondent No. 3 has set aside the order dated 26.12.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Purnia, purported to have been passed under Section 10(2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The facts of this case is in a very narrow compass.3. The petitioner is alleged to have acquired 19.31 acres of raiyati holding pertaining to C.S. Khesra Nos. 172, 173, 176 and 177 of C.S. Khata No. 9 of Mauza Pariharpur within the Baisi Police Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.K. Katriar, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), at the instance of the two petitioners is directed against the order dated 22-5-92, passed by Sri Satya Prakash Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, in P.C.R. Case No. 173/91/T.R. Case No. 362/92, whereby cognizance of the alleged offences has been taken under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused, the petitioners herein, have been summoned to stand their trial.2. According to the allegations in the petition of complaint, the sole opposite party herein (the complainant) is the owner of a Petrol Station known as Pakam Service Station at Pakaur who had purchased Mobil oil from the depot of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Mithapur, Patna, on 30-9-91, valued at Rs. 1,90,001/-. The same was loaded over a truck belonging to one Niranjan Pandey (described in the petition of complaint as P.W. 1, for transportation to Pakaur. One Naresh Raut (described ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. In the instant application a prayer has been made for quashing of the first information report lodged under Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 5 of the Explosives Rules (shortly the rules) as well as the order taking cognizance dated 7.9.1994 for an offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Substance Act). 2. Before dealing with the points raised on behalf of the parties, the facts, in brief, are necessary to be stated; The Sub-Inspector of Police, Daltonganj police station on getting secret information that a jeep bearing registration No. BHH 5610 was carrying 10 K. Gs. of explosive articles with detonators and fues from M/s Paramount Explosive Magazine to the offence of the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation (hereinater referred to as ('Corporation') whereas, under law, they were entitled to carry only 5 K.Gs. of explosives at a time, and t...
Tag this Judgment!