Court : Patna
This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent preferred by the respondent no.9 arises from the judgment and order dated 16th September 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No.12054 of 2010. The matter relates to appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra under the Gram Panchayat Mohiuddinpur, P.S. Hansa, District-Samastipur under the then prevalent Scheme (hereinafter referred to as žthe SchemeŸ) and absorption as Panchayat Teacher under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as œthe Rules of 2006?). The respondent no.10 Prashant Kumar approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No.12054 of 2010 to challenge the order dated 26th June 2010 made by the District Magistrate, Samastipur in Miscellaneous Case No.1 of 2010 and the order of cancellation of his appointment made by the Gram Panchayat on 1st January 2009. It appears that as early as in April 2003, the writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 329/2012 wherein Raghu Yadav @ Rogha Yadav @ Amlesh Kumar Yadav happens to be appellant and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 215/2012 wherein Rutan Yadav happens to be appellant commonly originate from the judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2012 whereby and whereunder both the appellants have been found guilty for offence punishable under Sections 396 and 397 of the IPC and order dated 22.02.2012 whereby each of them has been directed to undergo RI for 10 years as well as fined Rs.5,000/- in default thereof to undergo additional imprisonment of three months under Section 396 of the IPC, RI for 8 years under Section 397 of the IPC with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-6, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No. 21/2010, challenged the same under present respective appeals and on account thereof, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. PW-8, Mantun Yadav had recorded his Fard-e-beyan on 17.06.200 at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the Resolution contained in memo no.598 dated 25.3.2003 (Annexure-9) passed by the respondent no.3, by which, on conclusion of a departmental proceeding, he was inflicted with punishment of dismissal under the orders of the Governor, in terms of Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1959. Since the Resolution had been issued under the orders of the Governor, petitioner filed this writ application directly to this Court challenging the same. He has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him as Range Officer of Forests with all consequential benefits. The background facts of the case of the petitioner are that, after due selection and training, he joined as Range Officer in the office of Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi on 3.4.1982. Subsequently, in due course of posting, he joined at Dhalbhum under the State Trading Division, Jamshedpur in July, 1992. He continued there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
The petitioner has filed this criminal writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- œ(i) For quashing of the F.I.R., bearing Alamganj P.S. Case No. 315 of 2012, registered under Section-135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of being not maintainable as the same has been instituted for the same offence for which Alamganj P.S. Case No. 19 of 2009 was instituted; (ii) For a declaration that the second F.I.R. is not maintainable after quashing of the previous F.I.R./order taking cognizance in the previous F.I.R. for the same offence; (iii) For a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in pursuance of Alamganj P.S. Case No. 315 of 2012; (iv) For a declaration that the F.I.R. instituted in contravention to the statutory provisions cannot be maintained; (v) For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found deemed entitled to....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. The present First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30th June, 1970 passed in Title Suit No. 122 of 1965 by the learned 1st Sub-Judge, Arrah. 2. The plaintiffs-appellants herein, brought the aforesaid suit for partition claiming 3/4th share in the suit properties, fully described in Schedule 1 of the plaint. Besides that, other incidental and consequential reliefs were also sought for on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants herein. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing five separate sets of written statements. The defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 5 filed their written statement disputing the claim raised on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants herein. Similarly the defendant No. 4, defendant Nos. 6 to 8, defendant Nos. 9 to 11 and defendant No.12 filed their separate respective written statements disputing the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants herein with respect to the suit properties. However, the defendant No.2, subsequently, adopted the written st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
I.A. Ansari, J 1. Under challenge, in the present appeals, are the judgment of conviction, dated 28.07.2007, in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 1992, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Khagaria, and the order, dated 30.07.2007, whereby various sentences have been passed against the accused-appellants. 2. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Court has convicted all the accused-appellants, under Sections 342, 323 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court has also convicted the accused-appellants, namely, Mahendra Tanti and Ram Sharesh Tanti, under Sections 302 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court has further convicted the accused-appellants, namely, Bhadai Tanti, Chandra Deo Tanti and Bhujangi Tanti, under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has also convicted the accused-appellant, namely, Mahendra Tanti, under Section 148 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Appellant Ajay Sadai has preferred instant appeal against the judgment dated 16.04.2012 whereby he has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentence dated 18.04.2012 directing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years as well as also fined of Rs. Ten thousand in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months additionally by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.521 of 2010/1266 of 2010. 2. PW-9 Shibo Devi gave her fard-bayan on 11.07.2010 at about 1.00 p.m. at her house disclosing therein that her husband Naresh Sadai had gone to Tamil Nadu to earn his livelihood. She resides along with her son Manish Kumar aged about 4 years and a daughter Sanju Kumari aged about 2 years. She used to go for daily wages after giving meal to her children. Her children are being cared by Renu Kumari aged about 8 years, daughter of her sister. Today, at about 9.00 a.m. while she along with others had gone to Gho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Appellant, Sujit Kumar @ Sujit Kumar Yadav @ Sujji has filed instant appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.04.2000 passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in sessions trial no. 428/1997/43/1998 whereby and whereunder, he has been convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 366 (A), 376 (2) (G) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for eight years respectively under both counts with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently. 2. Devan Yadav (PW-2) filed a written report on 12.11.1996 disclosing therein that his eldest daughter Rukmani aged about 14 years had come to Munger on 10.11.1996 at about 2:00 p.m. to see Goddess Kaali. When she did not return, they became worried and on account thereof, they proceeded to Munger in her search and during course thereof, they came to know that Arjun Yadav, Milan Yadav, Sujit Kumar @ Sujit Kumar Yadav @ Sujji were along with his daughter while going towards Lal Darwaza. They reached at Lal Darw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. This First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19th January, 1978 passed in Partition Suit No. 113/1 of 1974/1978 by the learned 5th Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Motihari. 2. The plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, brought the aforesaid Partition Suit for a decree of 1/2 share in the suit properties, fully detailed in Schedule 2 of the plaint. The suit was contested by the defendants 1st Set by filing their joint written statement. Both sides led their evidence and produced their materials in support of their respective cases. Finally, by the impugned judgment and decree the suit was decreed on contest with costs against the contesting defendants and ex parte without costs against the remaining defendants. 3. The defendants 1st party, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, preferred the present First Appeal, which was admitted on 26.6.1979 and notices were issued to the respondents. Now, the appeal has been listed under the heading &oel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.P. Singh, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction, dated 22.04.2013, under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-II, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No. 278 of 2012/05 of 2013, and the order, dated 23.04.2013, sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) on each count, and, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count. However, both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under: (i) Deceased Puja Devi, aged about 20 years, daughter of the informant, Ram Lakhan Giri (PW 4) was married, on 07.03.2011, to Raj Kumar Giri, son of the appellant, Bihari Giri. Since the wife of Bihari Giri had died and his son, Raj Kumar Giri, husband of Puja Devi, used to work, as a labour, in Rajasthan, Puja Devi used to live, in her matrim...
Tag this Judgment!