Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. 02/16.05.2011 Heard Mr. Satish Bakshi on behalf of the petitioner. The submission by the learned counsel is that subsequent to retrenchment proceedings, the respondents have attempted to avail some benefit on a number of occasions, despite the matter stood finally decided upto the stage of High Court. The challenge is that the Labour Court was divested of the jurisdiction after the dispute stood resolved by this Court. In view of this, the respondents are liable to be noticed so that they may be given an opportunity of hearing. Issue notice to the respondents returnable at an early date. In view of the submissions made in the instant case, the proceedings commenced before the Labour Court under Section 33(C) 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act is liable to be stayed till the respondents file their appearance through their counsels.2. The respondents may file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of notice. The petitioner may also file rejoinder to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. It is submitted that a similarly situated co-accused Sri Kant Das was granted bail vide order dated 02.02.2011 passed in B.A. No. 8694 of 2010; and the petitioner is a handicapped person and is a student; and he is in jail for about ten months in this case of Arms Act.2. On the other hand, Mr. Rajgarhia, learned counsel for the State, pointed out that the recovery of firearm used in the offence, was made on the basis of the confession of the petitioner and co- accused Nirmal Ravidas; and that the case of the co-accused Sri Kant Das is different from the case of the petitioner as his confession is general in nature; and that this is an off-shoot of the main case vide Nirsa P.S. Case No. 183/2010 under section 302 IPC. In my opinion, case of the petitioner is different from the case of Sri Kant Das and secondly, it appears that on the confession of the petitioner and co-accused Nirmal Ravidas, arms used in the crime was recovered.3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. 16.05.2011 As prayed by Mr. Sah, put up on 7th June 2011 to enable him to file supplementary affidavit informing this court as to who are the suspect / accused in the case registered vide FIR No. 25 dated 21.02.2010 for the offence under sections 302/394 IPC as also under section 27 of the Arms Act, lodged in police station at Koira, Sundergarh, Orissa....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. 06/16.05.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of Section 302 charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 306 I.P.C. He has further submitted that the victim has committed suicide and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. Counsel for the State has submitted that material has come that the petitioner used to torture the victim. Considering the submission made by both the parties and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. The instant application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 8 days delay in filing this Cr. Revision. Having been satisfied with the grounds taken and explanations made therein , delay in filing this Cr. Revision is condoned and the instant application is allowed. I.A. No. 2673 of 2010 stands disposed of.Cr.Rev. No. 1074 of 2010This Cr. Rev shall be heard.2. Call for the L.C.R of C-50/2002 corresponding to Tr. No. 41 of 2010 from the court of Sri. Koushik Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Garhwa along with the copy of the judgment recorded in Cr.Appeal 16 of 2010 by the Sessions Judge, Garhwa.3. Put up this case after four weeks.4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners surrendered in the court below on 10.5.2011 after the appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, for their conviction under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.The other convic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. 06/16.05.2011 Instead of Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P., Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P. will assist this Court on behalf of the State in this case. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.2. In the earlier order, the another Bench of this Court has directed the petitioner to seek instruction as to whether the petitioner is ready to deposit the aforesaid amount i.e. Rs. 68,458/- or not.3. In view of the said order, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court on or by 30th June, 2011 in the court below, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below, the court below is directed to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in connection with Gumla P. S. Case No. 201 of 2010 corresponding to G. R. No. 600 of 2010 subject to the following conditions:-(1) The petitioner will deposit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is no eye witness in this case and that petitioners are in jail only on the basis of suspicion and that they are in jail since 27.07.2010. On the other hand, State counsel pointed out that deceased had lodged a case against the petitioners under section 376 IPC and that there was land dispute also and that in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 the eye witnesses- the children and husband of the deceased have specifically said that the petitioners along with others took the deceased forcibly from the house and then she was found dead after 2-3 days.2. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. D.K.Sinha,J. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 04.08.2001 passed by the 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No.312 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected and the petitioner was called upon to stand charged for the alleged offence under Sections 493/376 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution story in short was that the prosecutrix Tutul Kumari, aged about 15 years presented a written report before the Officer-in-Charge of Ramgarh within the District of Dumka stating that her father was a hawker who used to visit weekly. The petitioner was having a grocery shop opposite her house where the prosecutrix used to visit the shop for purchasing grocery items. On the previous month of "Baishak" in the year 2000 it was the day of full moon she visited his shop to which the petitioner proposed to marry her. Two days thereafter, the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. D.K. Sinha, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.11.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Ghatshila in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2005, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners against their conviction by the learned SDJM, Ghatshila in C/1 Case No.93 of 2000, corresponding to T.R. No.921 of 2005, by which they were held guilty, was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. The learned SDJM, Ghatshila held the petitioners (1) Balram Tudu (2) Laso Tudu @ Laxmi Tudu (3) Sunaram Tudu and (4) Krishna Sardar guilty for the offence under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. They were further held guilty for the offence under Sections 429/34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Petitioner No. 5 Chandrai Tudu was also held guilty but no substantive sentence was awarded t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. Order No. 11 Dated: 16th of May, 2011. The appellants have challenged the order dated 14.07.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge and vide order dated 05.05.2008 only notices have been issued on the respondents u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the L.P.A. is delayed by 107 days.2. There are total 51 respondents out of which some of the respondents have been deleted vide order dated 09.02.2009. As per the office report several respondents yet remain unserved, therefore, we looked into the order dated 14th July, 2006 and found that the learned Single Judge has observed that the promotions under challenge were made on 31st December, 1985 and the order of appointment were issued to the respondents in the year 1987-1988-1989 and the writ petition has been preferred after a delay of 16 to 21 years relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Roshan Lal Vrs. International Airport Authority of India, reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C.597 and another in Sajay K.S...
Tag this Judgment!