Court : Patna
S.N. Jha, J.1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and its officials -- five in number -- posted in the regional offices at Patna, Bangalore and Gauhati, and the branch office at Patna have come to this Court for quashing the order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna dated 24-5-2000 in Complaint Case No. 610/2000 taking cognizance and issuing processes under Sections 406, 409 and 420 Indian Penal Code against them.2. The case of the complainant-opposite party, M/s. Poddar Industries, is that it is a partnership firm. In 1992 the Branch Manager of the petitioner company approached its partner and requested him to insure the factory building with all equipments along with the boundary wall and the partners agreed for the same. The rate of premium was thereafter fixed after site inspection as per the cost value of the goods insured. Finally, the company issued fire policy 'C' with coverage of special perils like flood etc. for one year. The policy was renewed every year. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Sachchidanand Jha, J.1. A short but significant question of law is involved in this letters patent appeal. The question relates to the procedure meant to be followed in conducting proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.2. The petitioner is a retired Government servant. He superannuated from the post of Head Accountant, Purnea Treasury on 31-12-1990. On 24-11-1992 he was served with a notice seeking explanation on certain points relating to provident fund withdrawals by some officers/employees of the Irrigation Department. Earlier, Khazanchi Hat P.S. Case No. 149/91 (State v. Devendra Prasad Srivastava) had been instituted by the Treasury Officer, Purnea in which the petitioner was not named as an accused. In the charge-sheet too, he did not figure. On 8-12-1992 the petitioner submitted his explanation. On 14-5-1993 he was informed by the Director of Treasuries that inquiry was proposed to be held under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (in short, 'the Pension Rules...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna
Reported in : (2008)1STJ210NULL
1. The applicant, a member of the Indian Forest Service and presently posted as Regional Chief Conservator of Forest at Muzaffarpur, during the relevant period had faced a departmental proceeding having been served memorandum of charges dated 30.09.1993 (Annexure A/2) while he was posted as Project Dy. Director, Division-2, Bettiah under Champaran Forest Project (between 27.7.1989 to 05.05.1992). Briefly stated the charges included that the applicant, misusing his office, on 7.03.1991 had issued permit in favour of Allied Industries, Baghah for transportation of 200 cubic ft. of Saal logs though only 128.25 cubic ft. Saal logs were subsequently found. It was also charged that despite clear direction of the Project Director he had not seized the logs along with the truck carrying that, as also for creating false documents to help the aforesaid company in illegal transportation of the logs, also attempting to destroy the evidence in this regard. It was also charged that despite orders o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Shiva Kirti Singh, J. All the eight writ petitions have been heard together as analogous matters because they contain common prayers questioning the constitutional validity of Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in particular the validity of Section 5, 13, 14, 15 and 18 of the said Act. The petitioners have also challenged declarations issued on various dates in respect of individual petitioners in terms of Section 5(1) of the Act, as a result whereof cases lodged by Vigilance Department of the State Government against the petitioners for various offences including offence under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988) shall be tried by Special Court established under Section 3 of the Act. In the context of effect of Section 6 (2) of the Act on pending cases, the validity of this provision has also been seriously challenged on the ground that the Act cannot be made retrospective beca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposite party no.2.2. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 15.04.2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, for the offences under sections 467, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 1799 of 2004.3. The relevant facts of this case is that one Complaint Case No. 1799 of 2004 was filed by the complainant opposite party no.2 on 03.09.2004 against five petitioners who are officials of Telecom Department alleging therein that on 10.01.1993 one Lalit Agarwal filed an application for Telephone Connection in the name of Shankar Lal Pansari, son of Nagar Mal Pansari, and accordingly, Telephone connection no. 23083 was provided till 19.09.2000 against the bill was paid, but, subsequently no payment was made. A bill worth Rs. 54,9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.1. Petitioner is a Clerk of High School Madhaul in the district of Sitamarhi and at the relevant time, working as such on deputation in the office of the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi.2. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, in its report dated 27.10.2003 (Annexure-8) addressed to the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, wrote about the petitioner's role in attempting to make payment of salary to one Shri Prem Kumar Pandit who allegedly secured appointment on the basis of forged letter. On receipt of the aforesaid report the District Magistrate, by its memo No. 375/2004 (Annexure-9), asked the petitioner to submit his explanation through his Controlling Officer, as to why appropriate departmental action be not taken against him. Petitioner submitted his explanation dated 10.4.2004 (Annexure-10), inter alia, contending that he had no role in getting the amount disbursed from the treasury and, in fact, on account of his diligence payment could not be made to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Informant.In the instant writ petition the petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 28.8.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in U.T. Case No. 459 of 2008 whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance and summon the accused petitioners to face trial, (b) and further for a declaration that the impugned order dated 28.8.2006 passed by the learned Magistrate, is in violation of the mandatory provisions contained in proviso of Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., as all witnesses mentioned in complaint petition have not been examined by the complainant.2. The facts of the case in short are as follows; on the statement of respondent No. 5, a F.I.R. was lodged bearing Mashrak P.S. Case No. 191 of 1995, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and under the Arms Act, dated 15.8.1995. While the in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.A. Sharma, J. 1. Pursuant to the call given by the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (hereinafter referred to as the Morcha), a Bundh was organized on 8th June, 1998, in Ranchi, leading to ransacking of the premises of the Bar Association of the district Court, destruction of its furniture and the vehicles parked there were damaged or burnt, giving rise to retaliation by the members of the Bar. The members of the Bar went on strike seeking appropriate action against the State Administration, police and the organizers of the Bundh. On a representation of the District Bar Association, Ranchi, containing allegations of assault, arson and loot in the campus of the District Court particularly the Bar Association, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court passed an order dated 11-6-1998, directing it to be placed before the Division Bench for dealing with the same in the judicial side, pursuant to which a Division Bench was constituted on 12-6-98 on which date this Court permitted the Bar Associatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Prabhat Kumar Sinha, J.1. Quashing appliction bearing Cr. Misc. No. 2018 of 1998 has been filed by Dr. Ajay Kumar, the City Superintendent of Police, Patna at the relevant time, whereas quashing application bearing Cr. Misc. No. 8644 of 1996 has been filed by Shri Amrit Singh Nimbran. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna at the same time, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (The Code, in short) both praying therein to quash the order dated 17-9-1994 passed by Sri Birendra Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 933(C) of 1992 whereunder, after enquiry, the learned Magistrate had found that a prima facie case against the petitioners was made out under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against them, further directing the complainant to file requisites for issuance of summonses against them. Both the cases emanate from the same complaint case which was filed by Shri Giri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.1.1989 passed by the Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Calcutta (respondent No. 3) imposing upon the petitioner the punishment of reduction to a lower scale in time scale by three stages. Against the said order the petitioner filed an appeal and the said appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority. Both the original and the appellate orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.2. The enquiry against the petitioner was held in respect of the following charges:You are working as Manager, Scale I at our Bagoura Branch since 3.10.1986.You were previously working at our Divisional Office, Patna as an Accountant.While so working at Divisional Office, Patna you were deputed to our Manganpur Branch to officiate as Manager during the period commencing from 16.2.1985 to 10.12.1985. During the period of deputation, you were permitted to stay at and operated from...
Tag this Judgment!