Orissa Court February 1964 Judgments
Atmacoori Ramamurty Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Ori54; 1967CriLJ573
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a revision against the appellate judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Berhampur maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 9 (a) of the Opium Act and the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment passed on him by a First Class Magistrate of Berhampur.2. The petitioner is a shop keeper of Berhampur town having a godown there. On 25-6-1958 his shop was raided by the Excise Sub-Inspector (P. W. 1) at 10 A, M. and a bag containing 16 seers of poppy capsules was recovered.3. His godown was also searched and 29 bags containing 13 maunds of poppy capsules were recovered from there. The petitioner took the plea that the articles recovered from his shop and godown were dried pomegranate shells and not poppy capsules, but this plea was rejected and he was held guilty of the offence.4. Mr. Rao for the petitioner did not challenge the conviction but urged that in view of the coming into force of the Probation of Offenders Act the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeb Panda and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-26-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori235; 30(1964)CLT359
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a writ petition by three former ex-village officers of Ganjam district, challenging the constitutional validity of the Orissa Hereditary Village Offices (Abolition) Act (Orissa Act 12 of 1962), by which the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act 1895 (Madras Act 3 of 1895) was repealed. While repealing the Madras Act, the Orissa Legislature, in Section 6 of the Orissa Act 12 of 1962, provided for some relief to those village officers whose services were dispensed with in consequence of the abolition of their offices Clause (1) of Section 5 of the Orissa Act says that on the abolition of these hereditary village offices the holders for the time being may be appointed to suitable posts under the State Government. Clause (2) of the section says that a solatium, of a certain amount may be given to those village officers who are not absorbed in suitable posts under the Government. Though Mr. Panda urged that the compensation thus granted to the hereditary village o...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Raghunathrai Ramkumar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori168
S. Barman, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff against the Railway Administration for Rs. 1756/- for loss of 45 maunds, 12 seers of sugar in the circumstances hereinafter stated. The defence pleaded limitation which both the courts below rejected and decreed the suit.2. The facts as relevant for deciding the point of limitation are these :On September 12, 1957 the plaintiff indented from Sasumusa near Gorakhpur in North Bihar for delivery to the plaintiff at Cuttack 240 bags of sugar under R/R No 10835 Invoice No. 49 dated 12-9-1957 Con North Eastern Railway) Ext. A showing the weight of the goods consigned as 667 mds. 20 seers. It is said that the first unloading in respect of the consignment was on September 25, 1957. The entries in the unloading register (i.e. Full Unloading Tally Book) dated September 30, 1957 Ext. C show that part of the consignment was lost.The plaintiffs case is that on October 7, 1957 at the t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›