SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Pat) 141

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
S. H. S. Abidi and S. Hoda, JJ.
Prem Prakash Sharma
Ganesh Dutt Mishra - Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 90 and 228 of 1989
Decided on: 5.4.1990

Advocates Appeared:
For the petitioner: M/s. Dr. Shankar Ghose, Dr. Sadanand Jha, Binod Shankar Tiwary and Harish Chandra Mishra (in Cr. W. J. C. No. 90 of 1989.)
M/s R K. Jain and Jitendra Prasad Singh (in Cr. W. J. C. No. 228 of 1989.)
For the State: M/s J.N.P. Sinha and Lala Kailash Behari Prasad.
For the informant, and BISCOMAUN: M/s Ram Bal.ak Mahto and P. K. Shahi.

JUDGMENT

S.H.S. Abidi & S. Hoda, JJ. - Prem Prakash Sharma and Ganesh Dutt Mishra have filed the two writ petitions being Cr.W.J.C. Nos. 90 of 1988 and 228 of 1989 respectively for quashing (A) the First Information Report in Kotwali Gandhi Maidan (Patna) P. S. Case No. 970 of 1988—State v. Tapeshwar Singh and others, filed by R. K. Singh, Administrator of Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as "BISCOMAUN"), vide letter No. A. D. to the Officer-in-charge of Kotwali P. S. Gandhi Maidan, against Tapeshwar Singh, Chairman of BISCOMAUN, P. P. Sharma I. A. S., the then Managing Director of BISCOMAUN, G. D. Mishra the then Advisor (Rehabilitation) BISCOMAUN and O. P. Agrawal, Niranjanlal Agrawal, Bansi Lal Agrawal and Gopal Lal Agrawal the four Directors of M/s Rajasthan Multi Fertiliser Pvt. Ltd. with head quarters at Bicharadih, Udaipur, (hereinafter to be referred to as "Firm"), (B) two charge-sheets i.e. No. 102 of 1988 under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") filed in Special Case No. 90 of 1988 and on i.e. No. 103 of 1988 under sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") filed in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, both arising out of the said Kotwali (Gandhi Maidan) P. S. Case No. 910 of 1988.

2. The Cr.W.J.C. No. 90 of 1989 was filed on 17-3-89 and after several dates it was admitted on 31.3.89 after which the State of Bihar filed the S.L.P. No. 1342 of 1989. The Supreme Court rejected it on 21.8.89 passing the order "The Special Leave petition is rejected but it is directed that the writ petitions may be placed before any bench of the High Court for expeditious disposal and it is expected that the High Court will hear and dispose of the petition within one month from today". Then on 23-8-89 Cr.W.J.C. 228 of 1989 filed by G.D. Mishra was also admitted and was ordered to be heard with Cr.W.J.C.

No. 90 of 1988. On 14-9-89, Cr.W.J.C. No. 280 of 1988 Tapeshwar Singh v. State of Bihar was admitted and ordered to be heard with this writ petition. The petitioner P.P. Sharma moved this court on 11-9-89 for the hearing of the petition in view of the said order of the Supreme Court dated 21-8-89. This court fixed 16-9-89 for the bearing of the writ petitions and also directed the opposite parties to file any counter affidavit if so desired by them. No counter affidavit was filed by the State. On 19-9-89 two affidavits both sworn by the Investigating Officer of the said Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 970 of 1988 were filed on behalf of the State and the other on the direction of the informant for stay of the hearing of the writ petitions on the ground that the State was intending to move the Supreme Court for the transfer of the case to some other High Court. But the Bench hearing the writ petitions following the said order of the Supreme Court, rejected the application by a detailed order. The Cr.W.J.C. No. 280 of 1988 was, however, withdrawn. The hearing of the two Cr.W.J.C. Nos. 90 of 1989 and 228 of 1989 continued on 19th of September 1989 to 21st of September 1989. Then the counsel for the State sought adjournment on 22-9-89, 25-9-89, 27-9-89 and 17-10-89. The hearing of the case was also interrupted due to strike by the lawyers of the court. On 24-10-89 the Bench was re-constructed as the Presiding Judge of the Bench was transferred to another court as Chief Justice. When the Bench was re-constituted one of the Judges declined to hear the case so the present Bench was reconstituted which started hearing from 1-11-89. The learned counsel for the petitioners again argued the case and also submitted written argument. The then Advocate General argued the case on behalf of the State from 8th to 10th of November 1989 before this Bench and sought adjournment on 15-11-89. In the meantime the State counsels were changed. It was at last on 23-1-90 that the case had been fixed on 25-1-90


























































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top