Court : Patna
Decided on : Feb-13-2004
s.k. katriar, j.1. heard mr. shashi shekhar dwivedi for the petitioners, mr. abbas haider, jc to gp no. ii for respondent nos. 1 to 5, and dr. alok kumar sinha for respondent nos. 6 to 9. this writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.2.2001 (annexure-1), passed by the learned collector of the district of saran at chapra in misc. petition no. 24/95 tapeshwar thakur and ors. v. sitaram thakur and ors. in purported exercise of powers under section 21 of the bihar privileged persons homestead tenancy act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the act), whereby the revision petition at the instance of respondent nos. 6 to 9 herein has been allowed, and the settlement of the lands in question in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled. according to the writ petition, it relates to plot no. 684, appertaining to khata no. 146, covering an area of 71/2 decimals= 2 kathas, situate at village shekhpura, district saran. it is further stated in the writ petition that the total area of this plot is 5 kathas and 2 dhurs, and the said 71/2 decimals of which was settled in favour of the petitioners by order dated 8.9.1982, as is evidenced by parcha marked annexure-2 to the writ petition followed by the rent receipts marked annexure-3 series. respondent no. 6 to 9 had filed an application before the learned dclr stating therein that the lands in question are gair- mazarua aam lands, being a garha used by members of the general public for purposes of bathing, drinking water, chhath .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Dec-14-2004
mridula mishra, j.1. appellants madan gopal rai and akshay lal have been convicted by the 2nd additional sessions judge, gaya in sessions case no. 127/84/48 of 1984 for the offences under section 307/34 of the indian penal code by the judgment and order dated 21.12.1987 and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. appellant no. 2 akshay lal has further been convicted under section 27 of the arms act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.2. the prosecution case in brief is that one suresh kumar tirthani (pw 6) lodged fardbeyan (ext. 3) on 31.7.1983 at 11 a.m. at pilgrim hospital, gaya alleging therein that he is the brother-in-law of sadhu ram tirthani (pw 4) and also worked as his employee. on 31.7.1983 at 7.45 a.m. he was playing with his nephew in front of his house when rama shankar rai (since dead) and his munshi akshay lal passed through that side on a scooter and after ten minutes akshay lal along with rama shankar rai and madan gopal rai arrived there and asked him as to why he laughed on seeing him. suresh kumar tirthani responded that he was laughing with the child and that is no offence. his reply annoyed the accused persons and on apprehending trouble, he raised alarm on which sadhu ram tirthani and basdeo tirthani arrived there. suresh kumar tirthani handed over his nephew to binod. sadhu ram tirthani asked the accused rama shankar rai as to why he was scuffling without any rhyme or reason on which madan gopal rai caught the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Nov-06-2004
c.m. prasad, j.1. the appeal is against the judgment dated 17th july, 2001 of the 3rd additional sessions judge, begusarai passed in s.t. no. 191 of 2000/ 23 of 2001, whereby each of the three appellants has been convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the indian penal code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also a fine of rs. 7,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 months. each of the appellants has also been convicted under section 364 read with section 34 of the indian penal code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and also a fine of rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. each of the appellants has also been convicted under section 120b read with section 34 and 201 read with section 34 of the indian penal code but no separate sentence has been passed under these counts.2. the informant shankar sah (pw 6) gave a written petition with his l.t.i. to the officer in-charge of bhagwanpur police station on 26th february, 2000 alleging therein that on 23rd february, 2000 at about 4.00 p.m., his son pankaj kumar (the deceased) aged about 14 years had gone away with appellant bicky kumar mahaton for bringing soil but he did not come back. he searched for the boy in the house and when he was not found there, he (the informant) thought that he (the deceased) would have gone to his another residential house at bhagwan chowk and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Feb-16-2004
chandramauli kr. prasad, j.1. this application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 5-12-2001 (annexure-5) whereby a notice in regard to the date and time to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioners has been given. further prayer made by the petitioners is to quash the resolution dated 12-12-2001 whereby motion of no confidence has been passed against them.2. shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioners were elected as pramukh and up-parmukh of arrah panchayat samiti for which the election was held on 11-6-2001. a requisition to convene the meeting of the panchayat samiti was given and ultimately by the impugned notice dated 5-12-2001 the secretary of the panchayat samiti issued notices intimating that the meeting of the panchayat samiti shall be held on 12-12-2001 to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioners. meeting as scheduled was held and by the impugned resolution dated 12-12-2001, motion of no confidence has been carried out against the petitioners.3. by order dated 10-1-2002 this court allowed the election of the parmukh which was scheduled to be held on 16th of february, 2002 but directed that the election of the parmukh shall abide by the final decision in the case. it was also directed that all financial matter of the panchayat samiti shall be transacted by the executive officer and not by the petitioners or the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Jan-15-2004
..... that would fall within the purview of article 301. the argument that all taxes should be governed by article 301 whether or not their impact on trade is immediate or mediate, direct or remote, adopts, in our opinion, an extreme approach which cannot be upheld. it was further held in paragraph 52 of the judgment that 'article 301 provides that trade .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Nov-24-2004
bal krishna jha, j. 1. all the three appellants stand convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under sections 302/34 of the indian penal code by the judgment and order passed on 15-5-1998 in sessions trial no. 211 of 1990 by the then learned additional sessions judge-vii, siwan.2. both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order, so they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. on 9-2-1988, the informant, bidya giri, p.w.4, lodged f.i.r. alleging inter alia that his younger brother, sheonath giri, was doing tailoring works at paharpur and used to return home daily by 7 p.m. on 9-2-1988 when he did not return to his home by 8 p.m., he (informant) along with sirajul manir (p.w.2), went out to search him and proceeded towards faharpur. on the way when he reached near an orchard situated in the east of the village-balapur, he spotted his brother, sheonath giri, lying smeared in blood on the ground but he was in senses at that time. sheonath giri told him that at about 6.30 p.m. when he arrived near the said orchard, he noticed all the three accused. madan kumar giri; nand kumar giri and ganesh bhagat alias bacha bhagat, standing there. as soon as he arrived there, the accused, madan giri, hurled a bomb at him which hit on his stomach and he fell down injured on the ground. thereafter, madan giri, again hurled two bombs at him. thereafter, all the three accused made good escape in the southern direction. the injured .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Nov-10-2004
r.s. garg, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the petitioner who was holding the office of pramukh of supaul panchayat samiti is before this court with the submission that contrary to provisions contained in sub-section (3) of section 44 of bihar panchayat raj act, 1993 instead of serving a notice of no confidence upon the pramukh it was produced before the sub-divisional officer, who forwarded the same to the block development officer and the block development officer in his turn opened the file and thereafter the same was brought before the pramukh. the petitioner says that if the notice is not served upon the pramukh in accordance with law that is sub-section (3) of section 44 no meeting can be conducted to consider the said motion of no confidence. in support of his submission the petitioner has filed the copy of the motion of no confidence to show and say that the notice in fact was sent to the sub-divisional officer. the respondent no. 6 in his counter affidavit and the respondents no. 7 to 25, 28, 30 to 43, 48, 63, 64, 67 and 68 in their separate counter affidavit have submitted that the notice of no confidence was sent to the pramukh. he refused to receive the same therefore, the notice was submitted before the sub-divisional officer to send the same to the block development officer and the block development officer after opening the file sent the said notice to the pramukh.3. on the last date learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : May-06-2004
narayan roy, j.1. heard counsel for the parties.2. this writ application was filed substantially for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment by way of promotion to the post of enforcement sub-inspector-in preference to respondent nos. 6 to 15, who have been appointed by way of promotion to the post of enforcement sub-inspectors. a prayer has also been made to quash the orders of appointment of respondent nos. 6 to 15 as they were juniors to the petitioner as shown in joint and final gradation list of clerks of mofussil subordinate office of the transport department, published in the year 1993.3. during the pendency of this writ application, an amendment application has also been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging annexure a to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the state, whereby and whereunder the representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to order passed by this court in cwjc no. 1437 of 1998 has been rejected.4. according to the pleadings of the parties, it is the admitted fact that the petitioner is working as clerk in mofussil subordinate office of transport department and he was entitled to be appointed by way of promotion to the post of enforcement sub- inspector by virtue of the decision taken by the transport commissioner, government of bihar, patna, whereby and whereunder a decision was taken to fill up certain posts of enforcement sub- inspector from amongst the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Aug-13-2004
chandra mohan prasad, j. 1. this appeal is against the order of conviction dated the 30th march, 1992 and sentence dated 31st march, 1992 of the 1st additional sessions judge, east champaran, motihari passed in s.t. no. 80 of 1991 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 17 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act (hereinafter, in short, to be referred to as the 'act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. the case of the prosecution is that on 26th august, 1990, krishna mohan verma, a.s.i. excise (p.w. 3) along with excise constables siyaram singh (p.w. 1) and madan ram (p.w. 2) came to the tempo stand near railway gumti, raxaul. they found appellant bal kishun dangal in suspicious condition there. then they conducted a search on his person and as a result of search, one paper pudia, containing 4 small pudias containing smacks was recovered from the bottom folder of his trousers. the pudias were kept concealed in the folder. after recovery, a seizure-list was prepared. the seizure-list in the writing and signature of p.w. 3 is ext. 1. the seizure was made in presence of a public witness arjun who also signed over it. his signature is ext. 2/2. after seizure, the case was enquired into and then a prosecution report (ext. 3) was filed. sample of the recovered smacks was also taken and it .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Jan-29-2004
chandramauli kumar prasad, j. 1. this application has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.10.2002 passed by the divisional commissioner, munger in arms appeal no. 6/2001-2002 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the licensing authority revoking the licence has been, dismissed for default. further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 31.1.2003 (annexure-7) whereby the application filed for restoration of the aforesaid appeal, has been dismissed.2. short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner held licence bearing no. 12 of 1996 for a non-prohibited bore arms. after the grant of the licence, he purchased the rifle on 7.9.1998. a proceeding for revocation of the licence was initiated against the petitioner and the licensing authority cancelled his licence. against the said order, he preferred appeal before the commissioner which was registered as arms appeal no. 6 of 2001, 2002 in which on 6.9.2002, petitioner filed hajri. on that date commissioner called for the lower court record and the case was directed to be listed on 4.10.2002. on the said date, petitioner was absent and a statement was made by the counsel for the state that notwithstanding the cancellation of the licence by the collector, petitioner had not deposited the arms. taking note of the aforesaid statement, the commissioner observed that in case the petitioner does not do so 'keeping in mind his persistent absence, this court .....Tag this Judgment!