Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 119-123]Smt. Abha Kumari vs. The State Of Bihar and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 119Deepak Mandal vs The State Of Bihar 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 120Shri Giridhar Gopal Vs Smt. Ramavati Devi 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 121Khusboo Kumari vs. The State of Bihar 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 122Chandradev Yadav Vs The State of Bihar 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 123Judgements/Orders...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 119-123]
Smt. Abha Kumari vs. The State Of Bihar and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 119
Deepak Mandal vs The State Of Bihar 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 120
Shri Giridhar Gopal Vs Smt. Ramavati Devi 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 121
Khusboo Kumari vs. The State of Bihar 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 122
Chandradev Yadav Vs The State of Bihar 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 123
Judgements/Orders This Week
Case Title: Smt. Abha Kumari vs. The State Of Bihar and Others
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 119
Setting aside an "unreasoned" punishment order passed by the Special Secretary of the Social Welfare Department against a Child Development Project Officer, the Patna High Court has emphasized the critical need for clear and coherent reasoning in decision-making processes.
Justice Mohit Kumar Shah observed, “It is evident from the records, as narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and recorded hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs that the present case is a case of no evidence. This Court further finds that the impugned order dated 30.6.2015 is not only cryptic but also an unreasoned order, depicting complete non-application of mind inasmuch as the same has not taken into account the defence put forth by the petitioner, apart from no clear, cogent and succinct reasons, having been furnished by the Respondent No. 3, for coming to a decision warranting infliction of punishment upon the petitioner.”
Case Title: Deepak Mandal vs The State Of Bihar
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 120
The Patna High Court, upholding the convictions of five individuals for kidnapping under Sections 364 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has held that despite certain lapses in the investigation, the case of prosecution cannot be dismissed if evidence of the victim is reliable.
A division bench of Justices Alok Kumar Pandey and Ashutosh Kumar observed, “The contention of the learned APP is quite tenable in the light of the fact that the statement of victim remained intact, throughout the trial. On the other hand, the contention of the appellants on the point of motive and the lapses on the part of the I.O. are not tenable in the light of the eye witness account. The investigation appears to have been conducted in faulty manner. But only due to the unprofessionalism of the I.O., the case of prosecution cannot be thrown out.”
Case Title: Shri Giridhar Gopal Vs Smt. Ramavati Devi
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 121
The Patna High Court has underscored that a court can add parties in a lawsuit if deemed necessary for effective adjudication, regardless of the plaintiff's preferences. The judgment further emphasizes that the mere addition of an intervener as a party does not inherently create an interest in the disputed property.
Justice Sunil Dutt Mishra observed, "Mere addition of the intervenor as a party will not create an interest in the suit property and in considered view of this Court the presence of the intervenor is necessary for efficacious adjudication of this case and addition is also necessary for avoidance of multiplicity of suit."
Case Title: Khusboo Kumari vs. The State of Bihar
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 122
The Patna High Court while overturning the convictions of eight individuals in a murder case, has opined that the mere discovery of weapons, specifically pistols and cartridges, based on the confessions of the accused, without the input of a ballistic expert, was insufficient to establish the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The division bench of Justices Sudhir Singh and Chandra Prakash Singh held, “...the recovery of two country made pistols and two 315 bore live cartridges is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants regarding the commission of the alleged offence. Moreover, there was no attempt made by the prosecution to obtain the opinion of a ballistic expert to ascertain whether the bullet could have been fired from the recovered weapon.”
Case Title: Chandradev Yadav Vs The State of Bihar
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 123
In a crucial ruling, the Patna High Court emphasized the fundamental principle of natural justice, stating that any authority under the law must issue notice to the affected party before passing any prejudicial order, and the authority should only make a decision after the affected party has had an opportunity to be heard.
Justice Sandeep Kumar observed, “Any authority under law before passing any order prejudicial to a party must issue notice to the affected party and will pass the order only after appearance of the affected party and after hearing him. In the present case, from perusal of the order dated 24.08.2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Khagaria and also on going through the averments made by the petitioner, which has not been denied by the State or the private respondents, it is clear that the petitioner was never heard by Additional Collector, Khagaria before passing the impugned order dated 24.08.2019.”