Court : Patna
Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.1. The sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.1.1993 and 25.1.1993 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 653 of 1992 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari whereby the appellant was found guilty under Section 23 of the N.D.P.S. Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of rupees one lac and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two years.2. Prosecution story (Ext-2) relates to an occurrence dated 31.3.1992 when the custom Inspector (PW 12) along with custom officials was checking at Bairiya and in course of checking a bus was stopped which was going towards Muzaffarpur. A passenger with plastic bag was found lying on the bus. On inquiry about the plastic bag he claimed that he it was his own and disclosed his name. That persons was perplexed at the sight of the custom officials. After observing paraphernalia search of the bag was made and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
P.K. Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.3.1989 passed by the Special Judge (2nd Additional Sessions Judge), Darbhanga, in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1988 convicting the accused-appellant under Section 20(b)(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, shortly called as N.D.P.S. Act, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.9.1987 Daya Shankar Rai, P.W. 9, the then officer-in-charge of Sadar Police Station, Darbhanga, received a confidential report to the effect that the accused-appellant, who was appointed as Chowkidar of cement pole factory, Katrahia, was still living within the premises of the factory although the said factory was closed down about one year back and that he had concealed Ganja within a room of the factory and was doing business with the same. A sanha entry was made on the basis of the report of the spy and then the officer-in-charge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Jha, J. 1. The petitioner is a proprietory firm engaged in the business of timber. In this writ petition it seeks, in effect and substance, a declaration that the authorities of the Forest Department of the State Government have no authority to interfere with the movement of timber of foreign origin from one place to another within or through the State of Bihar. The limber in question is said to be 'Khair' wood brought into India from Nepal under a valid permit.2. According to the petitioner, earlier there was restriction on import of timber from Nepal to India. By notification No. 200/90/Customs, dated 19th June, 1990 of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue timber, among others, was exempted from customs duty. The Ministry of Commerce also issued consequential public notice on 11th September, 1990. Thus, by reason of the aforesaid two notifications movement of timber from Nepal to India became completely free. Neither any duty is to be paid nor penalty is to be imposed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.1. While exercising power under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide order dated 22.2.2008 contained in annexure 10 the State Election Commissioner has disqualified the petitioner from holding the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Reodha in the district of Darbhanga. This order has been challenged therefore in the present writ application.2. Some basic facts are not under dispute. Petitioner's father is a Nepali resident as well as its citizen. The mother is alleged to be the woman of Indian origin married to petitioner's father. Subsequently after matrimony it is stated that she too acquired Nepali citizenship voluntarily. Petitioner after coming of age entered into a matrimony with one Mithilesh Prasad in the year, 1988. She was supposed to be of 18 years of age. Based on the matrimony and her residence her name was entered into the electoral roll of Jale Legislative Assembly. According to her, her nam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
P.K. Sinha, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner Satyendra Prasad Singh praying therein to quash the entire criminal proceeding including order of cognizance recorded by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur dated 16.9.1988 against the petitioner, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 'the Act' in short) in Custom Case No. 25 of 1987.2. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 20.2.1987 some persons on motorcycle were chased by Custom Officials but they fled away leaving behind motorcycle, from search of which three pockets of Nepali Ganja weighing 15 kg. were recovered. It was found that the petitioner was the owner of the motorcycle and was carrying the contraband. The claim of the petitioner is that on 21.2.1987 this petitioner had lodged a case before the Police alleging theft of the aforesaid motorcycle.3. Vide order dated 6.9.1994 learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ajay K. Tripathi, J.1. By virtue of order dated 20-12-2006 contained in Annexure-4, the State Election Commissioner, while exercising power under Section 135(1) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has disqualified the petitioner from the post of Mukhlya, Ballour Gram Panchayat in the District of Darbhanga on the ground that the petitioner was a Nepali citizen and therefore, is not entitled to occupy the elected office under question. Petitioner wants the impugned order, therefore, to be set aside in the present writ application.2. A complaint was filed by one Shri. Sunil Kumar Jha of Ballour Village on the ground that Shri. Narendra Narayan Das, the petitioner in the present writ application by making a false declaration had contested the election to the post of Mukhiya, even though, he is a resident of House No. 55 D.S.P. Road, Ward No. 3 of Viratnagar, Nepal and is a Nepalese citizen having citizenship No. 1177/031/32. Based on the said complain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Sessions Trial No. 328 of 2006 and Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2009, arising out of Sikandara (chandradeep) P.S. case No. 42 of 2006 were conducted analogous by Sessions Judge, Jamui, framining charge against all accused under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court by judgment and order dated 17.4.2010 has convicted all accused- appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants Surendra Yadav alias Shailendra Prasad and Preman Yadav were awarded sentence of death and directed to be hanged by their neck till they are dead. But other appellants have been sentenced R.I. for life and fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for six months. The District and Sessions Judge, Jamui had made reference for confirmation of death sentence under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as such Death Reference and criminal appeals were heard analogous and being decided by a common judgment.2. Nepali Yadav is the informant of Sikandara (Cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Sessions Trial No. 328 of 2006 and Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2009, arising out of Sikandara (chandradeep) P.S. case No. 42 of 2006 were conducted analogous by Sessions Judge, Jamui, framining charge against all accused under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court by judgment and order dated 17.4.2010 has convicted all accused- appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants Surendra Yadav alias Shailendra Prasad and Preman Yadav were awarded sentence of death and directed to be hanged by their neck till they are dead. But other appellants have been sentenced R.I. for life and fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for six months. The District and Sessions Judge, Jamui had made reference for confirmation of death sentence under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as such Death Reference and criminal appeals were heard analogous and being decided by a common judgment.2. Nepali Yadav is the informant of Sikandara (Cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
B.P. Singh and B.P. Sharma, JJ. 1. The petitioner herein through its sole proprietor has prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 24-1-1992 passed by the Conservator of Forest. Magadh Division, Patna (respondent No. 4) rejecting the application made by the petitioner for issue of transit permit for transporting Nepali Khair wood through the territory of the State of Bihar to other States, including Uttar Pradesh, and for a declaration that the Rules framed under the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 shall not be applicable to forestproducc which is only in transit through the State of Bihar, not being a forest produce of the State of Bihar. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner is a proprietory concern registered by the Department of Commercial Taxes, Madhubani having its Registration No. MB 542(R). It is also registered under the Central Sales Tax (Regulation and Tur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (2002)256ITR26(Pat.)
1. The Department is in appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that unexplained deposits in the name of Nepali citizens in the Indian banks cannot be taxed under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The main reason asserted by the Department is that it is not proved that the source of such deposit in the bank is actually in Nepal and not in India.2. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that on the basis of the enquiry conducted at the bank information was gathered under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act for violation of Section 195 of the Income-tax Act relating to a Nepali/non-resident. Notice under Section 142(1) was issued but no return was filed.3. Instead a copy of the ledger account of the depositor's account in the bank was filed. The learned Assessing Officer considered the deposit as income by the non-resident in India and, therefore, taxed it as unexplained investment under Section 69 together with interest ea...
Tag this Judgment!