Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
..... , learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 8 submitted that in view of the case of the parties that the respondents 5 to 8 are in possession over half of the lands of jamabandi no.3 whereas petitioner is in possession of remaining half of the said jamabandi, the lands over which the respondents 5 to 8 are in possession are quite identifiable and moreover, the descriptions of those lands do find mentioned not ..... counsel appearing for the petitioner in order to assail the order passed by the commissioner submitted that document if any relating to possession of the respondents 5 to 8 over half of the lands of jamabandi no.3 had never been acted upon and it could not be acted upon as neither the plot numbers nor kheshra number had been mentioned in ..... alkhi ahrin, widow of laru ahri (other co-sharer) had left the village and made a prayer for settlement of the lands with respect to half of the lands of jamabandi no.3 which was allowed and at the same time, remaining half of the lands of jamabandi no.3 was settled with dhanushdhari chaudhary, father of the respondents 5 to 8, possession over the same was given by the process of court on 5.10.1936 which ..... being aggrieved with that order the respondents 5 to 8 herein preferred revision, vide r.m.r no.104 of 1999-2000 whereby the commissioner after recording that half of the lands of jamabandi no.3 had been settled in favour of the father of respondents 5 to 8 and were given possession over the same, set aside the order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
..... therefore, as a motive we are left with some very shaky evidence about some kind of a vague affair between the deceased and the accused, which also must be examined in the light of this attempt by the prosecution to improve its case with regard to the alleged motive by a highly belated allegation of pregnancy of the deceased.9. ..... we therefore proceed to examine the prosecution case and evidence in the light of the law declared by the supreme court in the case of "anil kumar singh v. ..... has mentioned by this witness for intending such a desire on the part of the accused is about the pregnancy which as stated above, has been found not only to be not proved but also most improbable in the light of the other witnesses. ..... after about two and half years of the incident. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure for quashment of the order dated 13.5.2008, passed by the chief judicial magistrate, jamtara, by which cognizance of the offence was taken under section 3(1) (x) of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 in jamtara p.s. case no.187/06 against the petitioner.2. prosecution story in short was that the informant-opposite party no.2 presented a written report before the jamtara police on 30.8.2006 stating therein that he was employed by the petitioner manoranjan prasad sinha, executive engineer, r.e.o., jamtara as a domestic help for the last one year. informant alleged that the petitioner proposed on 20.7.2006 to arrange rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) within two days if he actually wanted to do construction work of panchayat mandap proposed by the side of his house, for purchasing essential articles related to construction and for that he assured to deliver the work order to him. pursuant to such proposal by the petitioner, the informant arranged money from his fifteen friends and then went to the house of the petitioner on 23.7.2006 with all his fifteen friends to deliver the amount. it was further alleged that the petitioner finding him in the company of fifteen friends, asked the informant to come alone in his house and he took the entire amount from him. the petitioner directed that foundation was to be laid on 28.7.2006 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. the present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30th november, 2005 and 1st december, 2005 respectively, passed by learned 3rd additional district & sessions judge, dumka (f.t.c.) in sessions case no. 150 of 2003, whereby, the appellant, namely, sole hembrom, has been convicted for the offence under section 302 of the indian penal code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.factual matrix:1. it is the case of the prosecution that a first information report was lodged at ramgarh police station within the district of dumka on 17th december, 2002 at 12 noon by rahora hembrom (informant-p.w.7) on 16th december, 2002 he was in his house, as he was having some pain in his hydrosel, and his mother, namely, muni besra (deceased) was sleeping in the adjacent room. on that day at 13 hours, his cousin brother, namely, sole hembrom (appellant), came there having axe in his hand and started alleging that the mother of the informant viz. muni besera is a "witch" and she has killed his son and thereafter, gave axe blow on the head of his mother. the informant further stated that on the day of incident, his daughter, namely, bale hembrum (p.w. 1) was also there at the place of incident. it is further stated by the informant that having killed his mother, sole hembrom (appellant) fled away after throwing the axe in the courtyard. the informant is the son of the deceased.2. thereafter, investigation was carried out, charge sheet .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. heard learned counsel for the parties.this is the stand of the amicus curiae that there was a hearing in the commission, and the approach of the commission so far had been very charitable to the board and even the stringent orders passed against the board had not been followed. another aspect pointed out by the learned amicus curiae was that the board is taking refuse behind the situation that despite special courts created for the purposes of electricity offences, they have not been functioning properly. as against this, learned amicus curiae pointed out that under section 153(4) of the indian electricity act, the proceedings could be disposed of by the district judge concerned and any other judicial officer.2. therefore, this aspect that the courts have not been functioning is only an eye wash and the board is not desirous of proceeding in the matter and it is the irony that there are 15,000 f.i.rs and there are rs.3,500/- crores or a like amount due against the consumers, which the board has not been able to realize. this information is given by the learned counsel appearing for the commission to the court.3. the other aspect pointed out by the learned amicus curiae is that the patratu generating stations have been a kind of defence by the state government and the board, but the amount so far spent on the renovation of these plants has not resulted into any fruitful consequences. it would have been better, if, instead of going for renovation, the state government would .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. this application has been filed for grant of bail in connection with complaint case no. 1 of 2009, corresponding to enforcement case information report-e.c.i.r./02/pat/09/ad registered under section 4 of the prevention of money laundering act, 2002 ( money laundering act for short).2. the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this court on 24.05.2010 vide b.a. no. 823 of 2010, inter alia observing as follows;- it appears that a complaint has been filed by the assistant director- ii of directorate of enforcement under section 45 of the prevention of money laundering act, 2002 before the special judge ranchi (under the prevention of money laundering act) against the petitioner vikash sinha. it further appears that information was filed under the scheduled offences of prevention of money laundering act, 2002, i.e. under sections 420, 423,424,409 and 120b of the indian penal code as well as under sections 7,10 and 13 of the prevention of corruption act and now for the offence under the money laundering act punishable under section 4 of the prevention of money laundering act, 2002 against sri madhu koda, shri kamlesh singh, shri bhanu pratap shahi, shri bandhu tirkey, shri binod sinha, shri sunil kumar sinha, shri vikas sinha, shri sanjay chaudhary and shri dhananjay chaudhary. the investigation against this petitioner was complete and thereafter complaint was filed before the special judge, ranchi (under the prevention of money laundering act), stating .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. the petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 code of criminal procedure for quashment of the entire criminal prosecution arising out of complaint case no.664 /07 pending before the s.d.j.m., ranchi including the order impugned dated 19.5.2008 by which cognizance of the offence was taken under section 498a of the indian penal code.2. prosecution story in short was that the opposite party no.2 was married to the accused-petitioner no.1 on 21.6.1999 according to hindu rites and customs prevalent at dumka where her father was posted there during service. after her marriage, she went to her matrimonial home at maksudpur in the district of patna. it was alleged in the complaint that within a month of her marriage, the accused persons started extending torture and subjecting her to inhumane behavior and cruelty and they started demanding rs.5,00,000/- to be brought from her parental home in spite of the fact that valuable gifts were presented to her on the eve of her marriage. as the parents of the complainant had financial constraints to meet out such unreasonable demand, they tried their sincere efforts to persuade the accused persons to keep the complainant properly and humanely but of no avail. it was alleged that the complainant at times was kept confined in the room without food and water and used to be assaulted at their hands. yet, the father of the complainant used to make over certain amounts to the husband-petitioner no.1 from .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
..... just after half an hour mahesh kumar, brother of lallu kumar was informed by mobile of lallu kumar and also from other mobilea that all the three persons have been kidnapped.3. .....
Tag this Judgment!