Orissa Court April 1952 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The State Vs. Minaketan Patnaik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Ori267
Panigrahi, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bolangir, in a case started against the respondent under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The accused was the Civil Supplies Officer at Bolangir on the day of occurrence. The case against him is that at or about 8-30 P.M., on the 5th day of March 1950, he accepted a sum of Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification with a view to facilitating the export of kudo from Kantabanji railway station, Bolangir District, to Bombay Presidency. Briefly stated the facts are that Purushottam (P. W. 1) who was acting as purchasing agent of the firm of Shiva-shankar Tricumjee, at Cuttack represented to Shivashankar on 18-12-49 that he had purchased 15,000 maunds of kudo for export and requested Shivshankar to obtain a permit for the same from the Supply & Transport Department, Cuttack.On 28-12-49. the Under-Secretary to the Government of Orissa, in the Supply & Transport Department (Food), add...
Tintus Kharia and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Ori258; 18(1952)CLT276
ORDERNarasimham, J.1. This revision is against the conviction of the petitioners for certain forest offences committed in Bamra State sometime in July 1949, and the sentence of fine passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kuchinda. Their appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Sambalpur.2. Village Lepaikani, Babejore and Laidaguna in Bamra State form part of Sadharan forest of the State. It is alleged that the petitioners felled some green trees of the reserved species from these villages and thereby committed an offence under Rule 43 (a), (b), (f), & (g) of the Rules for the Preservation and management of the Bamra State forests, including Zamindari Areas. It was further alleged that they prepared the land for cultivation within the protected forest area of village Laidaguna and thereby committed an offence under Rule 8 (I) (i) of the said Rules.3. The main, point of law Urged by Mr. Ray on behalf of the petitioners, is that with the merger...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›