Court : Patna
B.P. Singh and B.P. Sharma, JJ.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra, dated 24th March, 1986, in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 1980. The two appellants herein alongwith five others were put for trial before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. Appellant No. 2 herein, Jagarnath Kumhar, was charged of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code while others were charged of the offence under Section 302/140 of the Indian Penal Code. On appreciation of the evidence on record the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case as against the remaining accused persons, but held that the case against Jagarnath Kumhar was fully established. He, accordingly, held appellant Jagarnath Kumhar guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. He also held appellant No. 1 Ragho Kumhar guilty of the offenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
B.P. Singh and Ashish N. Trivedi, JJ.1. This appeal by the appellants is directed against the judgment and order or the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur dated 27th/30th August, 1994 in Sessions Trial No. 69 of 1992 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as stated hereinafter.Appellant No. 1, Ram Bhawan Rai, has been found guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life on that count. He has also been found guilty of the offences under Sections 147 and 379, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment on each count. The remaining appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life Appellant No. 2, Ram Sarekh Rai, has been convicted under Section 379, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Ram Sarekh Rai a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. All these writ applications involving common questions of law and fact were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in these applications has prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to perform his statutory duties by setting the claim of the petitioner pending before them in terms of the provisions of Bihar Public Works Account Code and Bihar Financial Rules. 3. According to the petitioner, he entered into contracts with the State and the works pursuant thereto have been completed and (found) to be satisfactory by the concerned respondents. 4. According to the petitioner, bills were prepared in respect of the works done by the petitioner, but the respondent No. 4 in stead of making a full payment has made only a part payment in respect thereof. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the very outset submitted that the petitioner in these applications is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Loknath Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed in Compensation case No. 125/87 by Sri. Lakhan Kumar Sahay Addl. Judicial Commissioner-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Lohardage thereby and thereunder the claim of compensation as preferred by the appellant is dismissed.2. The fact, in short, for the purpose of this appeal is that the aforesaid compensation case was preferred by these appellants who are none-else-than the widow, sons and daughter of one Chamru Ram who while going on cycle on 24.2.1987 and reached near a bridge on Shankh river at Kuru-Lohardage road, then the Oraon bus bearing No. BPV 9669 came with great speed and was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver and it dashed against the deceased causing fatal injury on the spot. The driver sped away with the vehicle towards Lohardage side. However, one lady passenger wife of Swapan Ghosh came down from the but at Pathratoli and subsequently one Awadh Bihari Singh a co-villager ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.2480 of 2012 ====================================================== Subodh Kumar, Son of Ram Nandan Rai, Resident of Village-Baro Salempur Tola, P.S.-Barauni (Garhara), District-Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kr. Sinha, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA18. 01-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 21, 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 47(A) of the Excise Act. In course of raid, the police party apprehended the petitioner on his Kirana Shop and recovered 34 p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1988)25ITD599(Pat.)
1. The issue is about a sum of Rs. 45,710 which was added by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment for the asst. year 1979-80.2. The sum of Rs. 45,710 was made up of two additions one for Rs. 21,170 and another for Rs. 24,540. The sum of Rs. 21,170 represented the profit worked out at 2 per cent on sale of goods amounting to Rs. 10,58,509. It was found by the ITO that the account books of M/s. Raj Trading Co. which have been seized during the search of their premises contained an account of M/s. Rama Traders the assessee where the later was found to have made purchases amounting to Rs. 10,87,306. The books of the assessee showed that he had made purchases of only Rs. 28,797 from M/s. Raj Trading Co. The ITO therefore relying on the ledger account of the assessee as appearing in the seized books of M/s. Raj Trading Co. enquired why the excess purchases amounting to Rs. 10,58,509 were not appearing in the account of Raj Trading Co. in his accounts maintained by him. The assessee deni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Heard Mr. Eqbal, Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. S.N. Lal, Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and with their consent this appeal is being disposed of at the stage of hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. Claimants' son, Mahendra Singh, died on 4.8.1986 in an accident by bus BRV 7371 which was insured with the appellant insurance company. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling in the said bus which turned down and fell in a ditch and in the said accident he died. It was held that the driver of the bus did not apply reasonable care and caution to avoid the accident and, therefore, the accident took place on account of an act of negligence on his part. The victim was about 26 years old and he was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. Deducting a sum of Rs. 500/- for personal expenses per month, remaining Rs. 1,000/- per month was being contributed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The applicant is in jail in connection with Piparahi P.S. Case No. 13 of 2004, dated 26.2.2004 under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC and 25 (1-B) A, and 26 of the Arms Act.3. It appears from the report dated 26.2.2004 sent by the Officer Incharge, Piparahi Police Station that while committing dacoity in a jewelry shop, the accused persons opened fire and one of the bullets hit the co-accused/present applicant. The public apprehended him on the spot and gave him a good beating. The police after receiving information, brought the accused and thereafter admitted him in the Government hospital, Sheohar. The report also says that right from 26.2.2004, the movements of the accused were restricted by placing a guard of 1+ 4.4. It is not in dispute before me that on 26.2.2004 the accused was lodged in the hospital, his movements were restricted and he was not produced in any court within 24 hours, as required under Section 57 of the Code of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. Heard.2. By registered sale deed the petitioner had purchased some lands. The private-respondent No. 4 alleging that he was an existing adjoining raiyat sought to pre-empt this purchase and filed an application in this regard before the respondent-D.C.L.R. Bhagalpur, in terms of Section 16(3) of the. Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. While filing the said application it is provided by the rules in respect thereof that he must deposit the consideration amount plus ten percent and annex a receipt thereof to his application. Further he must notice the vendor and vendee by registered post and must annex proof thereof. Admittedly, these two things were not complied with. Petitioner, being the vendee, on being noticed, objected to the pre-emption application. Objection was that the respondent had only disclosed that he had purchased certain adjoining lands but the details of purchase was not given. The claim of the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.N. Sahay, J.1. By the impugned order dated March 15, 1993, in Complaint Case No. 26 of 1993, the Special Court of Economic Offences, Dhanbad, has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Petitioner No. 1, Kailash Stone Works, is a registered firm at Pakur in the district of Sahebganj and the other petitioners are its partners. The petitioners derive income from manufacture and sale of stone chips. On November 30, 1990, the petitioners filed a return showing a total income of Rs. 2,32,090 for the assessment year 1990-91 and a revised return on January 16, 1991, showing a total income of Rs. 1,94,450. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3)/182(1) on total income of Rs. 3,01,800. In the course of scrutiny of accounts, the Assessing Officer found that on sale of Rs. 52,52,896, G. P. of Rs. 10,63,631 has been shown which works out to 20.36 per cent. On the basis of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ...
Tag this Judgment!