Court : Patna
..... the procedure laid down in sections 200 and 202 of the code for taking cognizance of a case under section 190(1)(a) though it is open to him to act under section 200 or section 202 also."6. learned senior counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3, in some and substance, has argued that while discharging the opposite party .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
..... otherwise of the allegations made in the f.i.r. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."7. so far as question of applicability of prosecution sanction in respect of petitioner no.4 is concerned, facts indicated above is sufficient ..... to make it clear that the act alleged against petitioner no.4 was not in relation to discharge of official duty. first of all assaulting the complainant by the petitioner no.4 cannot be termed as an ..... act of official duty. moreover, on the date of occurrence in the present case from the facts narrated above, it is evident that no case/f.i.r. was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
..... time barred. it is well settled principles of law that question of limitation is mixed question of fact and law. section 18 of the land acquisition act provided different period. there is no fact regarding when the applicant received notice or whether in fact he received it. according to the learned counsel for the ..... and moreover, this point was overruled by the land acquisition judge. the learned counsel further submitted that in the application under section 18 of the land acquisition act at paragraph 7, they have specifically pleaded that they received the compensation under protest. the learned counsel further submitted that the learned court below has not ..... not received the compensation paid by the land acquisition officer with objection and therefore, they could not have filed application under section 18 of the land acquisition act claiming reference.(6) on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the award is dated 31.03.1984 and the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner appearing in Criminal Misc. No. 38457 of 2007 is permitted to correct the complaint case number in paragraph 1 and prayer portion of the application.2. Criminal Misc. No. 38457 of 2007 has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.12.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 2221 (C) of 2006 by which the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Sujeet Kumar Singh has filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging therein that he has not been handed over the possession of the flat purchased by the Opposite Party No. 2, despite the fact that Opposite Party No. 2 had paid the entire consideration amount. The said flat is in a multi-storied building and there was an agreement for the sale of the flat along with the parking slot. During the pendency of this case, this Court intervened and got the flat measured and also got the parties to settle the dispute. Counsel for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , has prayed for quashing of an order dated 27.7.1998 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge IV, Gopalganj in Cr.Revision No.127 of 1998/49 of 1998 . By the said order, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has quashed the order dated 11.3.1998 passed by Sri R.K.Yadav, Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No.228 of 1998, Tr.No.729 of 1998. By order dated 11.3.1998 , the learned Judicial Magistrate had rejected the complaint petition under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure keeping in view the fact that the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the dispute was purely civil in nature.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 had filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistate, Gopalganj , which was numbered as Complaint Case No.228 of 1998, alleging therein that the petitioner,his brother and two other accused ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
..... ,964.18. all the claimants- land holders-respondents received the said awards prepared by the land acquisition officer with objection and filed application under section 18 of the land acquisition act claiming that the compensation paid by the land acquisition officer is inadequate and very low and therefore, the matter may be referred to the land acquisition judge. accordingly, their applications ..... under section 18 of the land acquisition act were referred to the land acquisition judge.(4) according to all the respondents, their houses have been acquired by the state of bihar but it was not properly valued according .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
..... to dispute that this court in the similar situation, has already held that for the purpose of filing petition under section13(2) of the prevention of food adulteration act, there was no requirement for personal appearance of the accused.7. besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, i have also perused the materials available on record. ..... learned counsel for the petitioner that on 18.3.1994, in the similar circumstances, this court has held that "there is no provision under section 13 of the act, which requires that unless the accused appears in person, no application can be filed to get the sample of food analyzed by the central food laboratory". similarly, ..... from the business premises of the petitioner and was sent for analysis report. during examination, the sample was found not standard as prescribed under the provision of the act. after receipt of the report, on the prayer made by the investigating officer, warrant of arrest was issued. after coming to know regarding the report as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
..... it was held that "confiscation of an essential committee or a truck is permissible only if the provisions of any order made under section 3 of the essential commodities act are violated". in some and substance, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that neither the seized article was controlled item nor in the case there was any ..... . on receipt of the charge sheet, the learned special judge, by its order dated 15.2.1999, took cognizance of offence under section 7 of the essential commodities act.3. aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 2.9.1999. while admitting, notice was ..... in amarpur p.s. case no.2 of 1998. by the said order, learned special judge has taken cognizance of offence under section 7 of the essential commodities act against accused persons including the petitioner.2. short fact of the case is that on 4.1.1998, the block development officer, amarpur jointly with officer-in-charge, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
..... order is operative. moreover, neither in the first information report nor in the impugned order of cognizance, it has been whispered as to which provision of the e.c. act nor instruction or rules or order was violated by the petitioners, while keeping the seized articles in the residential premises.7. accordingly, the court is of the opinion that ..... aurangabad took cognizance of the offence under section 7 of the e.c. act.3. aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 8.9.1999. while admitting, it was directed ..... police station , an f.i.r. vide aurangabad ( t) p.s. case no.382 of 1996 was registered for the offence under section 7 of the e.c. act. after registering the f.i.r., investigation was conducted and thereafter chargesheet was submitted. by the impugned order, i.e. order dated 7.2.1997, the learned special judge; .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Eight petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 5.5.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No.454 of 1998, G.R.No.1436 of 1998/ Tr.No.1065 of 1999, whereby after submission of the charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 had initially filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram , Rohtas , which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 21 of 1998 against all the petitioners and Manrajo Devi . After filing of the complaint, it was sent to the police for its registration and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, accordingly, an F.I.R. vide Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No. 454 of 1998 was registered on 10.9.1998 for t...
Tag this Judgment!