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 : May-10-2004
s.k. katriar, j.1. heard mr. manoj kumar ambastha for the petitioner, mr. abbas hsaider j.c. to gp no. ii for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and mr. dhruv narayan for respondent no. 5. this writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.9.2002 (annexure- 7), passed by the learned divisional commissioner, munger, in munger revenue mutation revision no. 9/96-97 (sunaina devi v. sheonandan singh and ors.), whereby the revision application preferred by the present petitioner under section 17 of the bihar tenant's holdings (maintenance of records) act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') has been rejected on the ground that the same is not maintainable.2. according to the writ petition, the petitioner acquired right, title and interest with respect to the lands in question by a registered deed of absolute sale dt. 31.12.85. thereafter she filed an application under the provisions of the act, for mutation which was registered as case no. 55/86-87. the learned circle officer, dharhara, passed his order dated 6.6.87 (annexure-2) also inviting objections. he passed orders for a general citation which was published soon thereafter, a copy whereof is marked annexure-2a to the writ petition. it is further stated in the writ petition that no objection was received. by order dated 13.7.87 (annexure-3), passed by the learned anchal adhikari, dharhara, the petitioner's application for mutation was allowed. aggrieved by the same, on sheo nandan singh filed the statutory appeal in items .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Dec-23-2004
prabhat kumar sinha, j. 1. this is a petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure ('the code', in short) for quashing the first information report including investigation in mufassil p.s. case no. 13 of 2002 instituted for the offences under sections 28 and 35 of the arms act, then pending in the court of chief judicial magistrate, motihari at east champaran.2. the facts of the case in brief are that mufassil p.s. case no. 100 of 2001 under arms act was filed by petitioner no. 1, paras roy, against one shankar rai alleging therein that while he and petitioner no. 2, rejeshwar roy, were guarding the mango crops shankar rai with three others came and indulged into criminal activities and, on protest, shankar rai fired upon him which misfired. shankar rai started fleeing away but he fell down and the petitioners caught him at which he left behind country made pistol and fled away. after investigation the police filed the final report at annexure-2, holding that the allegations were found not to be true at which the superintendent of police had ordered for filing of the final report, also directing to file charge-sheet against petitioner no. 1. on such order having been received the final report was submitted. it may be mentioned that as per the final form so submitted, no charge-sheet was submitted against petitioners no. 1 or 2. thereafter, on a supplementary petition filed by the petitioners the protest petition was treated to be complaint and, after enquiry .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Dec-22-2004
r.s. garg, j. 1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the petitioner being aggrieved by resolution dated 15.8.2003 in which no confidence has been expressed against him is before this court. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the panchayat samiti is constituted of 32 members, our of which 17 are elected members while 15 are nominated members. his submission is that the meeting was requisitioned by 10 members only and as the minimum requirement was 11 being one third, the requisition was bad. his further submission is that the meeting was directed to be convened on 14.8.2003 but it was adjourned for want of coram to 15.8.2003. the submission, in fact, is that the meeting was not adjourned to some other convenient date. learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the nominated members have no right to requisition a meeting of no confidence and as they have no right to vote in such a meeting, therefore, the meeting could have been called only by one third elected members and as in the present matter 10 members out of 17 have requisitioned the meeting, there was nothing wrong in it. for the coram and adjournment of the meeting it is submitted on their behalf that as the coram was not found complete on 14.8.2003, the meeting was adjourned to 15.8.2003 and nobody raised any objection against it.3. i have heard the parties.4. true it is that the panchayat samiti is constituted of 32 members but the fact remains that only 17 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Dec-15-2004
r.s. garg, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. this order shall finally dispose of cwjc no. 4986 and cwjc no. 10727 of 2003.3. it appears from the records of cwjc no. 4986 of 2003 that anita kumari was elected as a pramukh of panchayat samiti, patory, samastipur. it also appears from the records that after her election a requisition was made by some dissatisfied persons to convene a meeting to consider the no-confidence motion against anita kumari. it also appears that up-pramukh took cognizance in the matter and directed the block development officer-cum-chief executive officer, patori to convene a meeting. a notice for convening the meeting to consider the no-confidence motion was issued on 10.1.2003 (annexure-4). it was clearly mentioned that the meeting would be convened on 17.1.2003. the meeting was accordingly convened on 17.1.2003 and the petitioner was voted out.4. being aggrieved by the said resolution smt. anita kumari has filed cwjc no. 4986 of 2003. after her removal the elections were conducted and ram yatan roy was elected as pramukh of the said panchayat samiti.5. from the records of cwjc no. 10727 of 2003 it would appear that a no-confidence motion was made against said ram yatan roy and in the meeting convened on 22.8.2003 he was also voted out.6. being aggrieved by the resolution expressing no-confidence said ram yatan roy has filed cwjc no. 10727 of 2003.7. i am told that after removal of ram yatan roy, fresh elections have taken place and smt. .....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 : Dec-08-2004
mridula mishra, j.1. both the appeals arise out of one and the same judgment and order dated 8th august, 2001 passed by the 2nd additional sessions judge, west champaran, bettiah, in sessions trial no. 494 of 1997 arising out of sikarpur p.s. case no. 89 of 1997. hence, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment under section 302/34 of the indian penal code.2. prosecution case based on the fardbeyan of sattar ansari, (pw 5) recorded by the s.i. of sikarpur police station on 18th june, 1997 at about 1 p.m. is that on 17th june, 1997 at about 4 p.m. his brother bikhi mian had cut away branches of bamboo belonging to ish mohamad mian as branches had covered as shed over barhar, kadam and sarifa trees belonging to the informant. at about 7-30 p.m. ish mohamad mian asked sattar ansari (pw 5) from his darwaja as to why he had cut away the branches of bamboo trees upon which sattar ansari and his brother replied that they had cut away branches of bamboo as it was damaging their plants. some altercation took place and ish mohamad mian started abusing the informant and his brother. in the meantime, son of ish mohamad mian, jamaluddin came out from his house with double edged sword and said that he will cut the person who had cut his bamboo. bikhi mian, brother of the informant also came out and said that he was going to cut bamboo and was ready to see what was done to him. as soon .....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-14-2004
b.n.p. singh, j. 1. veena devi, wedded to gopal prasad, appellant no. 1, died in her in-laws' house within 6 1/2 years of her marriage allegedly for torture meted out to her by the in-laws. father of the deceased on receipt of message of tragic end of his daughter, took recourse to public authority and set criminal law in motion on filing written complaint on 20.1.1988 before officer-in-charge, bodh gaya police station, in which accusation, inter alia, was made that information received from his brother suggested that veena devi was poisoned and her dead body was cremated. as usual, investigation commenced in course of which, police officer visited place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the court. in the eventual trial, that followed, state examined 12 witnesses, father, uncle, and brother of the deceased, state also examined one police officer yogendra prasad (p.w. 12) who simply brought on the record first information report and also part of the police case diary. a good number of witnesses were either tendered by the state or they had turned volte face to the prosecution.2. defence of the appellants, both before the court below and this court has been that of innocence and they ascribed false implication for no good reasons. other defence of the appellants was that veena devi died of diarrhoea while she had been in in-laws' house.3. trial court, however, on appreciation of probative value of .....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!