Orissa Court October 1949 Judgments
State Vs. Haricharan Rakshit
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-28-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Ori114; 15(1949)CLT123
Narasimham, J.1. This is a Government appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge of Ganjam-Puri on an appeal from the conviction and sentence passed by a First Class Magistrate of Puri.2. The respondent was found travelling in a Second Class coupe compartment of the Puri-Howrah Express on 20th July 1946. His compartment was searched by the S. I. Anti-smuggling (P. W. 3) at Khurda Road Railway Station and new cloth consisting of dhoties, sarees, ready-made garments, napkins, etc., were recovered from the compartment. The respondent had a Second Class ticket No. 2,197, Another lady who was said to be the mother of the respondent was also travelling in the same compartment with him. The Sub-Inspector seized the cloth and on weighing the same found the weight to be about 22 lbs. Subsequently, however, when the cloth was weighed by the Court Sub-Inspector of Puri Sadar (D. W. 1) the weight was found to be 14 lbs., 4 1/2 ounces. As rightly pointed out by the learned S...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimsen Mahapatra Vs. Ramachandra Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Ori123
Panigrahi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for possession of 2.89 acres of land in Khata 158 in Mouza Eaikera. His case is that the suit lands which originally stood recorded in the name of a deity, Guru Grantha Sabeb, were put up for sale in execution of a rent decree and were purchased by defendant 6, Padma Matha, on 26th April 1937 for Rs. 72; that the appellant (plaintiff) purchased the same from defendant 6 by a registered sale-deed, dated 18th August 1941, for a sum of Rs. 200 and that he was disturbed in the possession by defendants 1 to 5. Defendant 1 is the main con-testing defendant and defendants 2 to 5 are his tenants. 2. The case of defendant 1 is that an ancestor of his Mahant Saheb Ram Das, gifted 57 of acre in plots 275 of the suit lands to one Madhusudan Tripathy. Bat neither the said Madhusudan nor his son Chintamoni paid the rent due to the zamindar. Defendant is Guru Mahant Madhab Das deliberately defaulted in payment of the rent and in...
Tag this Judgment!Govindha Majhi Vs. Arobinda Kar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Ori106
Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner had obtained this rate against the appellate judgment of the Additional District Magistrate, Balasore, confirming the judgment and sentence of fine of Rs. 25 passed against the petitioner under Section 379, Penal Code, by the Magistrate, 3rd Class, Balasore. 2. The case against the petitioner is that he caught fish in Panehpara river on 10th December 1947 without taking the permission of the complainant who claims to be the licensee of the fishery from Government. The admitted facts are that Plot No. 1326 in Mouza Bahalpur is recorded in the name of Government and is part of a tidal and navigable river. At the previous settlement it was recorded in the name of the local landlord and the fishery right had been assessed at Rs. 9. At the Current Settlement the plot was recorded as a public river in the name of Government. Both the Courts below have proceeded on the assumption that it is a tidal; and navigable river. The petitioner claims to have a common la...
Tag this Judgment!Basudev Moharan Vs. Ogadhu Ponda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Ori99
Ray, C.J.1. This reference arises in Second Appeal NO. 60 of 1945. One Baaudev Moharan, Secretary of Hathotto Co-oparative Society, (defendant-appellant) preferred this appeal against the confirming judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Berhampur upholding the decree of the Munsif in a suit for declaration of title and either confirmation or recovery of possession of the disputed Inam lands. The same lands had been the subject of attachment and sale at the instance of the appellant-Society in execution of a decree against a member of the Society, a brother of Ogadhu Pooda, the trustee of Sri Jaganuath Mohaparabhu of Hathotto village. The decree was passed against the former, qua, an individual as distinguished from a trustee. Admittedly, the endowment was not bound by the debts, far lees, by the decree, the execution, the attachment, the sale and the proceeding for delivery of possession that followed. The contention, inter alia, that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue, wa...
Tag this Judgment!King Vs. Arakhit Alias Jada Moharana
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1953Ori30
Panigrahi, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 341, Criminal P. C. by the Magistrate, First Class, Aska, in a preliminary enquiry that was conducted by him against one Arakhit alias Jada Moharana, a deaf and dumb person, for an alleged offence under Section 302, I. P. C. The Magistrate, while holding the enquiry, was satisfied that the accused Arakhit was incapable of making a defence as he was unable to understand the nature of the proceedings pending against him. The Magistrate examined the maternal aunt of the accused, one Bayani Maharanani, the elder sister of the accused Sunna Maharanani; & a neighbour Natabar Panda who lives 60 to 60 cubits away from the house of the accused. All these witnesses say that the accused is deaf and dumb since his birth, that he cannot understand anything even when it is expressed by gestures and that he is capable of understanding only a very few things by gestures such as directions to come, go, sit, stand and eat, but nothing else. The Magistra...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar Mahapatra and ors. Vs. Hari Otha and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Ori257
Jagannadhadas, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal. They own only about 1/3rd of the lands in Inam village called Agulpada. Defendants 1 to 4 are owners of lands in the neighbouring village of Gopinathpur which also is an Inam village. They have been sued as representing all the Inamdars of that village. Defendant 5 is the Government of Orissa represented by the Collector of Ganjam. The rest of the lands admittedly belong to the Dharakote Estate. The dispute relates to the right of the plaintiffs to irrigate their lands from the waters of a channel known as Kochianala, by raising a cross dam on it. This Nala runs through the two villages of Gopinathpur and Agulpada. According to the evidence of one of the plaintiffs' witnesses, P. W. 3, Kochianala starts in Government villages and goes to Government villages, but passes through these two Inam villages. The case of the plaintiffs is that the Kochianala is the irrigation source of the wet lands in the Inam, village o...
Tag this Judgment!The King Vs. Birdi Chand Moda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-10-1949
Reported in: AIR1953Ori32
Panigrahi, J. 1. This is an appeal by Government against an order of acquittal passed by Mr. S K. Bagchi, Magistrate, First Class, Cuttack.2. The prosecution case is that P. W. 2, Krupasindhu Mohapatra, Sub-Inspector of Police (Enforcement Branch) searched the premises of the accused, Birdi Chandra Moda on 15-9-1947 and recovered a stock of cotton cloths from an underground chamber of the accused's bouse. The seizure list prepared at the time (Ex. 1) shows that a number of pieces of cloth had been kept by the accused in two trunks in an underground chamber of his house. The cloths recovered are -- a whole 'than' of white drill, pauplin Cambric shirting, voila, mull-mull and fents which could be converted into saree pieces. The accused is admittedly a wholesale dealer in cloths. The prosecution alleges that the seized stock of cloths was in excess of the accused's 'normal requirements' and that Clause 13 (2) of the Orissa Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order has been violated.3. The pros...
Tag this Judgment!V. Verabhadralu Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-10-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Ori121
Narasimham, J.1. The petitioner was convicted of an offence under Rule 81 (4), Defence ofIndia Rules for contravention of Clause 18 (a),Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for sixmonths and fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months moreby a Deputy Magistrate, 1st class, Berhampur.The learned Magistrate further convicted thepetitioner under Rule 81 (4), Defence of IndiaRules for contravention of the Government ofOrissa Notification No. 11693 S.T. dated 23rdDecember 1943. But on appeal the learned Sessions Judge while maintaining the convictionand sentence for contravention of the CottonCloth and Yarn (Control) Order set aside theconviction for contravention of the GovernmentNotification mentioned above. 2. The facts as found by both the Courts are as follows: On 13th May 1946 at about 5 P. M. the petitioner was found proceeding in a motor car from Berhampur towards Ichhapur. The oar stopped at a Railway Le...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›