Court : Patna
1. Criminal Appeal No.949 of 2011 filed on behalf of appellant Dinesh Singh and Criminal Appeal No.1134 of 2011 filed on behalf of appellant Jitendra Rai were preferred from Jail. However, in due course, appellant of Cr. Appeal No.1134 of 2011 was duly represented by the learned counsel while appellant of Cr. Appeal No.949 of 2011 was represented by the learned Amicus Curiae. 2. Both two above referred appeals commonly originate out of DRI Case no.06 of 2004, wherein judgment of conviction was delivered on 11.04.2011, convicting both the appellants namely Dinesh Singh and Jitendra Rai for an offence punishable under Sections 20(B), 23, 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act and each one of them was sentenced vide order dated 18.04.2011 to suffer rigorous imprisonment of ten years as well as fine of Rs. One lac in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment of one year additionally under each head with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Petitioner/informant has challenged the judgment dated 28.01.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-1, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 347/1997/190/2000 whereby and whereunder the O.Ps No. 2 to 8 have been acquitted. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned lower court happens to be based upon wrong and flimsy grounds. It has also been submitted that altogether eight PWs have been examined out of whom PW-7 is the doctor who had conducted postmortem over the dead body of Sunil (deceased). From his evidence as well as from the postmortem report, it is evident that deceased Sunil had sustained ante-mortem fire arm injury and that was found the cause of death. Therefore, the version of the prosecution with regard to murder of Sunil by means of fire-arm is fully proved. However, the learned lower court wrongly and illegally took the aforesaid evidence contrary to the prosecution case in the background of presence of s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.N. Sahay, J.1. The petitioner at the material time was posted as M.V.I. at Dhanbad. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has impugned the legality of the order date 30.6.95 as contained in Annexure-1 whereby he has been transferred to Darbhanga for administrative reasons. The order was to be implemented with immediate effect. The petitioner immediately rushed to this Court and filed a writ application bearing CW.J.C. No. 1498/95(R); The said application was disposed of on 6.7.95 by passing following orders:After some argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this application and as such this writ petition is dismissed as with-drawn. However, this will not prevent the petitioner from making any representation against his transfer, before the appropriate authority.2. The petitioner had withdrawn the application for filing a representation for cancelling the transfer. On 7.7.95 his wife filed a representation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 19.6.2000 (Annexure-4) of the DIG, BMP, Central Zone, Patna by which the representation of the petitioner to treat him in the category of a Scheduled Caste and accordingly, appoint him on the post of constable, has been rejected.3. The petitioner claims to be a Scheduled Caste belonging to the State of U.P. In 1998 pursuant to advertisement No. 1 of 1998 for selection and appointment on the post of constable in BMP, the petitioner applied and was found fit by the Constable Selection Committee in all the tests. The height of the petitioner is 174.5 CM yet he was not shown in the list of successful candidates, whereas, other candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category having height of 173.5 were selected. The petitioner filed a representation before the DIG, BMP, Central Zone but the same not having been considered, he approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 7804 of 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a confirmed teacher of Patna University (hereinafter called the said University). The petitioner was initially appointed as temporary Lecturer in English in the said University on 25.11.1966. Then on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission, the petitioner was issued an order of appointment to the said post which was approved by the Syndicate vide notification dated 16.7.1968. Such appointment letter of the petitioner was issued under the signature of the Registrar of the said University. Thereafter the services of the petitioner as Lecturer of the said University was confirmed and he was promoted to the post of Reader in English with effect from 14.11.1980 vide notification dated 29.9.1981. The petitioner was further promoted to the post of University Professor of English in the said University with effect from 5.8.1988 vide order dated 20.8.1988. Then the order of promotion of the petitioner was revised ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Anjana Prakash, J.1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively by judgment dated 31.7.2001 by the Special Judge, GBI, North Bihar, Patna, in Special Case No. 14/96/R.C. case No. 13(A) of 1996.2. The facts of the case are that on 15.6,1994 the complainant had given an application to the District Industry Centre, Madhubnai, for loan of Rs. 80,000/- for setting up an ice factory. The District Industry Centre after having processed the application sanctioned the same and sent it to the Allahabad Bank for releasing the said loan amount. On 28.8.1995, Rs. 4,000/- i.e. 5% was paid to the complainant and the same was deposited in the bank. The bank also disbursed additionally a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the foundation. On 20.10.1995, the quotation was filed by the complainant and thereafter on 23....
Tag this Judgment!