High Court sets aside judgement of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Samastipur

In Pappu Sharma v. State of Bihar, the direction of the division bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Khatim Reza reads: "In face of the Doctors’ evidence, there could be a little doubt that the victim was attempted to be violated but finding the accusation against the appellant to be absolutely without any basis, we are constrained to set aside the judgment and order of conviction. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. Since the appellant is in jail, he is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case". In its order, Patna High Court's bench heard the appellant who was convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 vide judgment dated July 13, 2017 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Samastipur in Dalsingsarai. 

By order dated July 18, 2017, the appellant, a resident of Rasidpur, PBachhwara, Begusarai was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for one year for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 376 IPC. 

The judgement records that an eight year old girl is alleged to have been sexually violated by the appellant. The mother of the victim (PW4) had lodged the F.I.R. on 14.06.2015 alleging that on June 13, 2015, there was a religious congregation in front of her house under a peepal tree, where many persons of the village had assembled. She along with her daughter (victim) and a toddler slept on a cot by around 8.00 P.M. At about 12 ‘O’ Clock in the night, when she got up from her sleep, she did not find her daughter (victim) around. She came out in search of her daughter but to no avail. Shortly thereafter, she found her daughter weeping in the garden. When she was asked, she disclosed before PW4 that a musician of the band party had brought her at that place and had sexually assaulted her. The accused person had run away. PW4 lifted her daughter and brought her home and inquired about the musician in the band party. She came to know that one Pappu Sharma/appellant of Begusarai was member of the band party. The appellant was confronted with the afore-noted allegation but he denied and ran away. The local Mukhiya was informed about the occurrence, who in turn informed the police. The victim was brought to Dalsingsarai hospital and after her treatment, PW4 lodged the F.I.R. with the Mahila Police in Samastipur.

Since the appellant was the only person about whom there was a doubt that he had committed the offence, he was chargesheeted and put on trial. The Trial Court after having examined nine witnesses on behalf of the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellant.

The High Court observed that from the deposition of PW4 before the Trial Court, it appears that it was only on her guesswork that she had raised allegation against the appellant. In her examination in chief, she stated that somebody had taken her daughter and had sexually violated her. On being asked, the victim had told her that one boy had taken her to the garden and had physically violated her. During cross-examination, she admitted that her daughter only said that one musician had taken her to the garden. It was found out that the musician playing in the band party was Pappu Sharma (the appellant). His name was not taken by the victim. The mother of the victim did not even recognize the appellant.

The victim was examined. After testing her competence to depose through voir dire, the Trial Court recorded her statement. Voir dire test is a test to determine the maturity and capability of a minor to be a witness. In this test, a judge to test the mental capacity of a minor, asks him/her questions not related to the circumstances of the case. Although it is not a rule but evidence by a minor ought to be accompanied by corroborating evidence as given section 142 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court is cautious when there is a need to rely solely on a child’s testimony. The victim completely denied that the appellant who was standing in the dock, had committed any wrong act with her. She recognized the appellant but in no uncertain terms stated that he was not the person, who had caused trouble to her. The other witnesses, did not support the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. The grandfather of the victim denied the factum of rape of his granddaughter. 

The Court's order records that the victim was examined by Dr. Pushpa Rani and Dr. Hemant Kumar Singh, who found her to be between 7 to 8 years of age and there being strong evidence of sexual assault on her. Thus, there could be a possibility of the victim having been sexually violated but the accusation against the appellant was based on guess-work and some misgivings about his being the musician in the band party which was hired in the religious congregation. Had it not been the case, there would have been specific accusation against the appellant.

The High Court's bench led by Justice Ashutosh Kumar concluded that "it appears that it was only on the guess-work of the informant that the appellant was put on trial.

 

 

 

Justice Ashutosh Kumar bench sets aside judgement of Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Siwan, aquits four of murder charges, directs release of convicts

In Ram Awadh Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and Dashrath Sahni v. State f Bihar, Patna High Court's bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Khatim Reza observed, "We are amazed as to how the Trial Court found evidence good enough to convict all the appellants for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. In the absence of any evidence worth its name, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against all the appellants. The conviction of the appellants are thus set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges." The other appellants are Bechu Sahni and Kanhaiya Sahni.

The Court's judgement reads: "Appellant/Ram Awadh Kishore Prasad [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1031 of 2017] is in jail. He is directed to be released from jail forthwith, if not required or detained in any other case. Appellants/Dashrath Sahni, Bechu Sahni and Kanhaiya Sahni [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 858 of 2017] are on bail. Their liabilities under the bail bonds are discharged....Let a copy of this judgment be dispatched to the Superintendent of the concerned Jail forthwith for compliance and record."

The appellants were convicted under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) vide judgment dated June 13, 2017 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 393 of 2014 (G.R. No. 2700 of 2012), arose out of Darauli P.S. Case No. 67 of 2012. By order dated June 16, 2017, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.)) for one month under Section 341 of the IPC; R.I. for one year, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for three months under Section 323 of the IPC; R.I. for one year, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for three months under Section 504 of the IPC and R.I. for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for six months under Section 302 of the IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 

It all began with the killing of one Bigan Bind and the injury of his son and nephew, viz., Kush Kumar Bin and Dhanu Bin in the occurrence. The accusation against appellant/Ram Awadh Kishore Prasad (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1031 of 2017) was of assaulting the deceased on his head by means of a rami (iron rod). Kush Kumar Bin and Dhanu Bin are said to have been assaulted by appellants/Dashrath Sahni, Bechu Sahni and Kanhaiya Sahni. The deceased died after five days of the occurrence. 

The FIR was lodged by Kush Kumar Bind (as P.W. 9) who is the son of the deceased. He had alleged in his written report dated 25.07.2012 that a dispute had erupted between appellant/Ram Awadh Kishore Prasad and the deceased with respect to fixing of pegs in the water body for fishing. After a brief squabble, appellant/Ram Awadh Kishore Prasad gave a rami blow on the head of the deceased. He and Dhanu Bin were held back by appellants/ Dashrath Sahni, Bechu Sahni and Kanhaiya Sahni and were also assaulted by them. As a result of assault on the deceased, he received injuries on his head and fell down. The deceased was thereafter assaulted by all the appellants. In the meantime, many persons of the village arrived and seeing them, the appellants fled towards Darauli.

At the Trial, Kush Kumar Bind, the informant made a somersault and stated in his cross-examination that somebody else had drafted the written report and he was not aware of the contents of it. So far as the assault is concerned, he has supported the prosecution case to the extent of there being a dispute between the deceased and appellant/Ram Awadh Kishore Prasad with respect to fishing rights. The assault made on the deceased made him unconscious. He was taken to Darauli Hospital for treatment and from there, he was referred to Siwan and later to Patna, where he died. The death took place on July 31, 2012.

With respect to the enmity between the parties, Kush Kumar Bind admitted that appellant/Ram Awadh Kishore Prasad was the Mukhiya, whereas the deceased was a candidate for the post of secretary of the Fishing Cooperative Society. His candidature was being opposed by appellant/Ram Awadh Kishore Prasad. He has denied the suggestion that one Nandu Sahni had opposed appellant/Ram Awadh Kishore Prasad in the election for Mukhiya, in which election, the deceased was from the side of Nandu Sahni and that only on the asking of Nandu Sahni, the appellants have been made accused in this case. 

Dhanu Bind (as P.W. 6), who is the nephew of the deceased, was examined as P.W. 6. The sequence of events as narrated by him is different from the prosecution version. He stated before the Trial Court that he is an expert at fishing. For the dispute over fixing of pegs in the pond for the purposes of demarcating the area in which fishing could be done, a dispute had taken place when the appellants had started assaulting him. The deceased and P.W. 9 had come to his rescue, when the deceased fell down. Nobody had spoken about the occurrence to anyone. At the time of occurrence, only three persons, viz., the deceased, P.W. 7 and him were present. This is in stark contrast to the deposition of the informant (P.W. 9) who has claimed that many persons of the village had arrived immediately after the assault. He has also spoken about the association of the deceased with Nandu Sahni who had contested the election of Mukhiya and had lost to appellant/Ram Awadh Kishore Prasad.

The High Court observed, "It is very surprising that even though the deceased died in hospital and the post-mortem examination was conducted on his dead body, but neither the post-mortem report has been brought on record nor the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination has been brought to the witness-stand. The reasons for it remain completely unknown. The Trial Court has completely overlooked this fact and has discussed about the injury on head and one of the legs of the deceased."

The order notes that "The absence of post-mortem report and the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, give a death blow to the prosecution case. We have also found that independent witnesses were unanimous in stating that the deceased died because of fall on a boulder. That apart, there is quite consistency in the deposition of the witnesses regarding the case having been filed at the instance of Nandu Sahni, who had his own axe to grind against appellant/Ram Awadh Kishore Prasad. Nandu Sahni had lost in the elections to the post of Mukhia to appellant/Ram Awadh Kishore Prasad. This postulate appears to be correct for the reason that even the informant had not written the FIR which formed the basis of prosecution. Someone else had done it and he had signed it."

No Confidence Motion under Bihar Panchayat Raj Act must be considered: Patna High Court

In Munni Khatun v. State of Bihar and 22 others, Patna High Court's division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar endorsed the submission of  Y. C. Verma, the senior counsel of the appellant, and directed that No Confidence Motion be considered immediately under Section 44 (3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.  

The final paragraphs of the judgement reads: "it is imperative that the No Confidence Motion be considered immediately. The No Confidence Motion will be considered on 26.04.2024 at 11:00 AM in the Panchayat Bhawan, in the presence of the Executive Officer....Whatever legal consequences follow, on the decision taken at the meeting will have to be scrupulously complied with." The judgement authored by the Chief Justice was delivered on April 20, 2024.  

The writ petitions filed by the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh from Fulwaria, Gopalganj against the No Confidence Motion being carried on January 12, 2024 were rejected by Justice Purnendu Singh, the Single Judge of the High Court due to undue delay of more than three months. It was also found that there was already an election scheduled on February 7, 2024, which was stayed. After dismissal of the writ petition there was an election scheduled on April 22, 2024. The petitions were filed by Ranjan Kumari Tiwari and Munni Khatun. Justice Singh had recorded that "No reason has been assigned for delay in approaching this Court." He had concluded that "The writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for having approached this Court after delay of nearly three months after the requisition dated 30.12.2023, was communicated to the petitioners and also in view of the fact that elections for the post of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh have been notified."

The division bench heard senior counsel for the private respondents and counsels for the State Election Commission and the State besides Verma, the senior counsel. 

The Court drew on Section 44 (3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act which specifies that the requisition for a special meeting to consider the no confidence motion shall be presented to the Pramukh in writing with a copy to the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti, by not less than one third of the total number of members elected directly from the territorial constituencies. The provision then provides that the Executive Officer should immediately bring the requisition to the notice of the Pramukh and the Pramukh should convene such meeting on a date falling within 15 days of such requisition. It is further provided that if the Pramukh fails to call the special meeting, the Up-Pramukh or the requisitionists themselves i.e. one third of the total number of members elected directly, could call for a specialmeeting. 

The Court observed that "the right of the Up-Pramukh or the requisitionists to call for a special meeting would arise only on the expiry of the first fifteen days."

The Court's judgement recorded that in the Munni Khatun case, the requisition was made on December 30, 2023 and the special meeting convened by the requisitionists, as notified by the Executive Officer to the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh was on January 12, 2024, within the fifteen days period.

The Court observed, "we are of the opinion that there is a clear statutory violation insofar as the convening of the meeting is concerned. However, the Pramukh has also failed to comply with the statutory obligation cast on the Pramukh, to call for a meeting within fifteen days; since till 12th, the 13th day, no meeting was scheduled. Since there is clear statutory violation in convening the meeting, where the No Confidence Motion was scheduled; we are of the opinion that the election convened on 22.04.2024 shall not be proceeded with."

Takshila Educational Society failed to avail alternative remedy, petition dismissed by High Court

In Takshila Educational Society v. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment, Centre, New Delhi, the division bench of Patna High Court observed, "The plea made of no oral hearing afforded has to be considered in the context of the option not having been exercised; which amounts to a waiver" in its judgement dated April 22, 2024. Takshila Educational Society, the petitioner is aggrieved with the assessment order dated March 22, 2024, passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. There is an appeal provided from the order, which has not been availed of. 

The petitioner sought an opportunity for a proper hearing. The senior counsel for the petitioner relied on a Full Bench decision of Patna High Court in Commissioner of Wealth-Tax Vs. Sri Jagdish Prasad Choudhary, (1995) 211 ITR 472X (Pat). Therein, the specific provision on which the dictum was laid was Section 18 (2) of the Wealth Tax Act, which reads as under: “18 (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard." 

The Full Bench has held that the word “heard” occurring in Section 18(2) of the Act means to be heard “orally” and not a mere consideration of the case as made out in the written representation. Incidentally, it was also examined whether such an oral hearing can be given only on the request of the person concerned or whether under the scheme of the Act, there is an implied obligation of the concerned authority to offer an opportunity of oral hearing. It was found on the scheme of the Wealth Tax Act, specifically sub-Section (2) of Section 18 that even without a request there is an implied obligation on the authority.

The Court's judgement reads: "4. Juxtaposed with the above provision, we have to consider Section 144B(vii), which reads as under: “(vii) the assessee or any other person, as the case may be, shall file his response to the notice referred to in clause (vi), within the time specified therein or such time as may be extended on the basis of an application in this regard, to the National Faceless Assessment Centre;”

When one looked for Section 144 B (vii) in the  Income Tax Act, 1961, it was noticed that the entire Section 144 B has been "Omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987" as per its Section 51 with effect from April 1, 1989. The omitted provision dealt with "Reference to Deputy Commissioner in certain cases".

Drawing on these omitted provisions, the Court observed: "5. Hence, under the scheme of the Income Tax Act, specifically after the faceless assessment was brought into force, a request has to be made for an oral hearing. There is a specific option provided, which has to be ticked in the affirmative, to make the request while uploading the objection. Unless the request is made, the faceless assessment would be concluded without an oral hearing, which again is as per the scheme of the Act. We do not think that the dictum of the Full Court applies here. We also notice that there is a provision for appeal where all the facts can be argued in person. The appellate authority also has sufficient power to get a report from the Assessing Officer, after affording an opportunity of hearing before the Assessing Officer." These observations require re-consideration in the light of the omitted provisions which appear to have erroneously been cited.   

The Court drew on the judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited (2005) 6 SCC 499 to ascertain the contours of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the scope to interfere with appellable orders, as laid down by the Supreme Court. The Court has held that if an assessee approaches the High Court without availing the alternate remedy, it should be ensured that the assessee has made out a strong case or that there exists good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. It was clarified that the remedy of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy. The High Court can always refuse the exercise of discretion if there is an adequate and effective remedy elsewhere. 

It observed: "The High Court can exercise the power only if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or due procedure required for the decision has not been adopted. The High Court would also interfere if it comes to a conclusion that there is infringement of fundamental rights or where there is failure of principles of natural justice or where the orders and proceeding are wholly without jurisdiction or when the vires of an Act is challenged." The judgement was authored by Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The High Court reserved the liberty of the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The period during which the writ petition, was pending, from April 10, 2024, till April 22, 2024 shall not be reckoned as delay.

Computerisation should not violate principles of natural justice, High Court sets aside the assessment order of the Income Tax Department

In District Bar Association, Supaul v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Patna High Court's bench of Chief Justice and Justice Harish Kumar set aside the assessment order of the Income Tax Department. The judgement observes, "We make it clear that the assessment order is set aside only on violation of the principles of natural justice and we have not looked at the merits of the assessment at all."

The petitioner was aggrieved with the assessment order passed on 27.03.2023 without providing adequate opportunity for being heard. The writ petition has been filed merely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The request for adjournment made by the petitioner dated March 4, 2023 was filed in the portal of the Income Tax Department. Despite that, an assessment order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. 

Notably, the Department filed a response specifically contending that "no such request for adjournment was received in the portal of the Department." In compliance with the order of the Court, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit dated December 14, 2023, wherein "an auto generated mail issued from the portal of the Income Tax Department, that the request for adjournment for submission to notice under 147 is successfully submitted." The Department objected to it stating that the request for adjournment has to be uploaded in the assessment module of the “ITBA portal”, which has not received any request for extension of time. Although the Income Tax Department submitted that the adjournment request was not received in the ITBA portal but it did not disown the mail which was  issued by it. 

The Court observed that there is nothing to point out that suitable instructions were issued by the Department to the assesses to upload the adjournment requests in a particular portal. "The computerisation is to facilitate expeditious assessment and it cannot result in such gross violations of principles of natural justice." 

The judgement was authored by Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran. The Court set aside the order dated March 27, 2023. Its direction dated April 23, 2024 reads: "The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Saharsa, who has filed the counter affidavit in the writ petition, shall on receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, facilitate the opening of the portal so as to enable filing of objections. The petitioner shall file the objections and after affording a personal hearing, the matter shall be considered afresh."

Jharkhand residents languising in Buxer jail after conviction in NDPS case, High Court to hear them on May 9

The matter related to suspension of conviction over nine quintals of ganja came up for hearing before the division bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Khatim Reza. The counsel for Shankar Yadav, the second convict and the first appellant sought adjournment. The first appellant, a resident of Jharkhand is in Ara jail. Dr. Gopal Krishna, the counsel for Pritam Lakra (22), the second convict and the second appellant made a brief submission about how Lakra is not covered under offences under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) and Section 25 of Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 because Lakra, the resident of Jhrakhand is not a cultivator, producer, manufacturer, possessor, seller, purchaser, transporter, importer,  exporter or user of ganja. He is not the owner or occupier or controller or user of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance. Therefore, he does not have the agency to knowingly permits it to be used for the commission of offence under NDPS Act by any other person.

The counsel for Pritam Lakra informed the High Court about Nav Kumar Ojha, the third convict in the case who is languishing in Buxer jail without any legal assistance because of extreme poverty and unsound mental health of his wife. He submitted that the Court may direct the Legal Services Authority to provide legal aid to Ojha, the resident of Jhrakhand. Justice Ashutosh Kumar led bench asked Dr. Krishna, the counsel to get vakalatnama from Ojha and provide free assistance. The counsel agreed to do so. The case is listed for hearing on May 9, 2024.       

Section 20 of the NDPS Act deals with punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plants and cannabis. It states that "Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,—(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or (b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable..."  Section 20 (ii) b of the NDPS Act states that where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. Section 20 (ii) (C) states that where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b), and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. 

 

The judgement of the the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Bhojpur reveals that Pritam Lakra, the helper of the truck is not covered under the ambit of Section 20 (ii) (b) (C) of the NDPS Act because there is nothing on record to show that he is a cultivator of any cannabis plant or producer, manufacturer, possessor, seller, purchaser, transporter, inter-State importer, inter-State exporter or user of cannabis. It is apparent that the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Bhojpur committed an error in convicting him under Section 20 (ii) (b) (C) of the NDPS Act.

As to Section 25 of NDPS Act which deals with the punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence. It states that "Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence." This provision too was substituted by the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 with effect from October 2, 2001. 

A careful reading of Section 25 of NDPS Act shows that Lakra, the helper of the  truck in question is not covered under the ambit of Section 25. It seems that the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Bhojpur committed an error in convicting him under Section 25.

 

Notably, Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act was substituted by the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 with effect from October 2, 2001. There were over 40 amendments made in the original NDPS Act, supposedly to address certain obligations specially in respect of the concept of ‘controlled delivery’ arising from the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs andPsychotropic Substances 1988 to which India is one of the 87 signatories out of 192 parties since March 27, 1990. Prior to that India amended the NDPS Act for the first time in 1989. The UN Convention came into force on November 11, 1990, in accordance with Article 29(1) of the Convention. The NDPS Act was amended in 2014 as well. Some 25 amendments were made under the 2014 legislation.   

 

Out of 1541 judicial officers, seven judges suspended by Patna High Court

Out of a total of 1541 judicial officers, seven judges have been suspended by Patna High Court.   

Out of 90 District and Sessions Judges, two are under suspension:

1. RAJ KUMAR- II, Principal Judge (Family Court), Khagaria, Posting Date: 11-Sep-2020

2.  DHARMENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL, District and Sessions Judge, Supaul, Posting Date: 04-Mar-2023

Out 400 Additional District and Sessions Judges, 3 are under suspension:   

1. AVINASH KUMAR- I, Additional District and Sessions Judge
 Supaul, Posting Date: 05-Aug-2022

2. ARUN KUMAR- I, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chapra
Posting Date: 11-May-2022

3. SATYA PRIYA ANAND, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hilsa
Posting Date: 11-May-2022

Out of 275 civil judge senior division, one is under suspension:

1.  SAVITA RANI, Civil Judge (Sr.Div.)-cum-A.C.J.M., Ara, Posting Date: 12-Dec-2019

Out of 776 civil judge junior division, one is under suspension:

1. ASHUTOSH KUMAR- III, Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-cum-J.M. I Class, Barh, Posting Date: 18-Sep-2014