Patna High Court Weekly Roundup: April 28 - May 04, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 41 To 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 45

NOMINAL INDEX

Sarojani Educational Trust vs Central Board of Secondary Education 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 41

Pushpa Devi vs The State of Bihar Patna and ors 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 42

Bishal Roadways Versus UOI 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 43

Vijay Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 44

M/s Sri Sai Food Grain and Iron Stors vs The State of Bihar & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 45

Orders/Judgements

Patna High Court Rejects Plea Against Birla Edutech For 'Commercializing Education', Says No Material To Show Violation Of CBSE Bye-Laws

Case Title: Sarojani Educational Trust vs Central Board of Secondary Education

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 41

In a plea seeking an inquiry against Birla Edutech Limited for allegedly commercializing education, the Patna High Court said that no blanket or fishing inquiry can be directed into all schools run under the franchisee Birla Open Minds without any specific material against it.

The Court said that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) may initiate action only when specific material is brought to its notice indicating a violation of its affiliation bye-laws, particularly those governing financial transactions in the franchise process.

S.307 IPC | Framing Charges Doesn't Require Direct Evidence Of Intention Or Knowledge; Can Be Inferred From Circumstances: Patna HC

Case Title: Pushpa Devi vs The State of Bihar Patna and ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 42

The Patna High Court has ruled that at the stage of framing charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary to prove by direct evidence that the accused had intention or knowledge to cause death; instead, it is sufficient if the materials show either intention or knowledge, which can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.

Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, presiding over the case, observed, “Now comes the question, as to how, intention or knowledge can be proved. At the, prima facie, stage of consideration of charge and even during trial, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove intention or knowledge of the accused by way of direct evidence, because intention and knowledge comes from culpable state of mind and there cannot be a direct evidence of such culpable intention. Intention can be gathered from the surrounding circumstances, from the nature of wound received by the victim, from the manner of assault inflicted by the accused, from the nature of weapon used etc.”

Customs Act Grants Unfettered Investigative Powers Where Infraction Is Suspected: Patna High Court

Case Title: Bishal Roadways Versus UOI

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 43

The Patna High Court has held in a recent judgement that the Customs Act, 1962 provides 'unfettered power' to investigate where there are reasons to believe that there has been infraction of its provisions.

Presiding over the case, Justice Mohit Kumar Shah, observed, “The investigation cannot be nipped in the bud and be prevented simply on the basis of certain technicalities. The Customs Act provides unfettered power to investigate where there are reasons to believe that there has been infraction of the provision of the Customs Act.”

'Bar On Further Appeal Can't Be Ignored': Patna HC Rejects LPA Against Appellate Court's Order Under Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act

Case Title: Vijay Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar and Ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 44

Dismissing a letters patent appeal filed against an appellate court's order under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act pertaining to removal of the manager of a temple's deity and its property, the Patna High Court said that when the act itself creates a bar on filing further appeal then the same cannot be "ignored" and must be strictly enforced.

The court said this after noting that Section 55(2) of the Act creates a bar on filing any further appeal against an order passed under Section 55 (1). For context, Section 55 (1) states that unless otherwise provided in the Act, an appeal shall lie to the High Court against every order passed by the District Judge under this Act. Section 55(2) thereafter states that "no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this Section.”

GST Inspection Not Legally Sustainable Without Compliance With S.67 Of CGST Act & S.100 CrPC: Patna HC Quashes ₹88.64 Lakh Tax Demand

Case Title: M/s Sri Sai Food Grain and Iron Stors vs The State of Bihar & Ors.

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 45

The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition challenging a tax demand of ₹88,64,550.50, has observed that an inspection conducted under the BGST/CGST regime is legally unsustainable if not carried out in compliance with Section 67 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

According to Section 67 of BGST/CGST Act, 2017, an inspection to be conducted in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, as per Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there should be two witnesses when the inspection is conducted.