Court : Patna
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Having heard Shri G.P. Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel, amicus curiae, at our request in support of the appeal and Shri Ashwani Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we propose to dispose of this appeal at this stage itself. For the reasons in detail recorded in our order dated 04.08.2011 briefly stated when the appeal was listed before us for consideration of the handwritten application sent by the appellant praying for bail stating that though he was literate he was unable to engage any counsel being poor and his earlier bail applications to this Court had already been rejected several times, we found to our shock and dismay that the trial Court in its judgment under appeal had found the appellant to be about 28 years of age which would have made him about 16 years at the time when the alleged occurrence took place for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. We became curious and anxious in this regard. What shocke...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Dharnidhar Jha, J.- The present batch of four appeals arises out of an order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Authorised Officer, Patna, on 17.3.2011 under Section 15 of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, in connection with Special Case No. 3 of 2010 arising out of Special Vigilance Unit Case No. 2 of 2007 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by which the learned Authorised Officer directed the assets belonging to appellant Shivashankar Verma worth Rs. 1,43,96,265/- be confiscated to the State of Bihar. It was further directed that appellant Shivashankar Verma surrender or deliver possession of the assets shown in paragraph 24 of Annexure- IV appearing at serial nos. 1 to 13 to the District Magistrate, Patna who was to take possession of all the movable and immovable assets within thirty days from the date of the service of the order, failing which the District Magistrate, Patna or the Authorised Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.9.1999 passed in Cr.Rev.No.115 of 1998 by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge VII, Patna in Bihta P.S. Case No. 48 of 1993( G.R.No.346 of 1993). By the impugned order, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge VII, while allowing Cr.Revision No.115 of 1998 has set aside the order dated 12.2.1998 passed by the learned Magistrate in Bihta P.S. Case No.48 of 1993. By the order dated 12.2.1998, the learned Magistrate had allowed the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, who was the Complainant/informant in Bihta P.S. Case No.48 of 1993. The said petition was filed for adding further charge for offences under Section 368, 420 and 385 in addition to the charges, which was already framed under Sections 365 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner initially filed a complain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Shiva Kirti Singh, J. These seven writ petitions have been treated as analogous matters and heard together because they raise common issues by challenging the vires of Bihar Molasses (Control) (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1999 (Hereinafter referred to as the Validating Act) published in the official gazette on 10.01.2000. Petitioners have also sought for quashing of various demand notices issued pursuant to the aforesaid Validating Act by which they have been directed to pay administrative charges for the molasses consumed by them in their captive distilleries (in case of those petitioners who have sugar mills along with captive distilleries) or for the molasses lifted by them from various sugar mills during the period 1995-2000. In some of the writ petitions interlocutory applications have been filed for refund of administrative charges already paid pursuant to the Validating Act.2. The issues falling for determination in these cases are mainly issues of law. The relevant facts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Shiva Kirti Singh, J. These seven writ petitions have been treated as analogous matters and heard together because they raise common issues by challenging the vires of Bihar Molasses (Control) (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1999 (Hereinafter referred to as the Validating Act) published in the official gazette on 10.01.2000. Petitioners have also sought for quashing of various demand notices issued pursuant to the aforesaid Validating Act by which they have been directed to pay administrative charges for the molasses consumed by them in their captive distilleries (in case of those petitioners who have sugar mills along with captive distilleries) or for the molasses lifted by them from various sugar mills during the period 1995-2000. In some of the writ petitions interlocutory applications have been filed for refund of administrative charges already paid pursuant to the Validating Act.2. The issues falling for determination in these cases are mainly issues of law. The relevant facts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Gopal Prasad, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 19.05.1994 passed in First Appeal No. 166 of 1979 by which the appeal has been dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.12.1978 passed by Sri Mundrika Prasad, VIth Additional Sub-Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No. 129 of 1965 / 25 of 1977.2. Appellant is the defendant in the suit. Original Plaintiff Amar Rai filed a suit for declaration that the deed of gift dated 07.02.1964 executed by him in favour of defendant Sita Ram Singh with respect to the property in suit is illegal, inoperative and void with further prayer for recovery of possession of suit property and mense profit.3. The original plaintiff Amar Rai died during pendency of suit, his wife & daughter were substituted in his place as plaintiff No. 1 and 2 respectively.4. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the said original plaintiff Amar Rai had got his first marriage at village Pachphor, the first wife (D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Reported in : 2010(58)BLJR195
Jyoti Saran, J.1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.7.1995, passed in Matrimonial Case No. 20 of 1990/141 of 1992 (Sudhanshu Mauli Tripathi v. Meena Kumari @ Daijee and Anr.), by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, dismissing the suit for divorce filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')The appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act lies before this Court and is to be heard on facts as well as on law. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the position of the parties as it existed at the stage of the suit.2. The petitioner, Sudhanshu Mauli Tripathi, the husband, had filed a petition-cum-plaint under Section 13 for grant of a decree of divorce-cum-annulment of marriage from the defendant No. 1, Meena Kumari. The case of the petitioner as set out in the plaint is that his parents were looking for an educated girl having atleast a Gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. The petitioner-Company has come to this Court for quashing/setting aside the award dated 31.7.2007 (Annexure-1) passed in Reference Case No. 5 of 2006 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna by which he has held the order of transfer dated 21.1.2005 with respect to respondent No. 3 Sri Nalin Sinha from Patna to Hissar Head Quarter w.e.f. 1.2.2005 to be perverse and not sustainable in the eye of law and directed the petitioner to allow him to join at his previous place, i.e., Patna with full back wages and other consequential benefits.2. Shorn of unnecessary details the facts of this case are that respondent No. 3 was appointed as Medical Representative by appointment letter dated 24.6.1986 (Annexure-2) w.e.f. 1.4.1986. The detailed terms and conditions of his service were enumerated in the said appointment letter. In paragraph-15 of the same it was provided that it is a condition of his appointment that his services can be utilized at any place in India a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Reported in : AIR2010Pat29,2010(58)BLJR175
P.K. Misra, C.J.1. In these writ petitions, the primary challenge is to the validity of the provisions contained in Section 3(1) of the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also regarding the validity of the notification issued by the State Government fixing the rate of duty payable by the various sugar mills and other organizations generating electricity in their own power plants.The Act was enacted for the levy of duty on the sale and consumption of electrical energy in the State of Bihar. Its validity was once challenged in the Patna High Court mainly on the ground of lack of legislative competence. In decision reported in Indian Aluminium Co. and Anr. v. State of Bihar 1992(1) PLJR 55, the validity of Section 3(2) of the Act was upheld by observing that the electricity duty imposed was a 'tax' and not a 'fee' and the State had the necessary legislative competence.1.1 The present challenge is on account of amendment to Section 3(1) and the conseq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
ORDERAbhijit Sinha, J.1. Both these applications have been taken up together as the complainant in both the cases happen to be the same Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the BIADA') and the petitioners are offices of News daily, 'Times of India' and the issues involved relates to publication of certain news items in the said News Daily in respect of the inaction of the Authority and having been heard together are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 49987 of 2007 are Resident Editor, Assistant Resident Editor and Reporter of the news paper, Times of India, along with others have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No. 1968(M) of 2007 and have prayed for the quashing of the entire prosecution arising out of the same case including the order dated 26.6.2007 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 500, 501, 502, 109 and 120...
Tag this Judgment!