Orissa Court January 1965 Judgments
Murali Patel Vs. Purusottam Bhati and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Ori208; 1965CriLJ788
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. First party is the petitioner. Opposite Party No. 1 is the husband of Opposite Party No. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the disputed land from Purusottam Bhati by a registered sale deed on 9-6-1901 and got delivery of possession. Ever since then he was in possession. As the opposite parties created disturbance in his possession, he filed an application before the Magistrate asking for an order under Section 144, Cr. P. C. against the opposite parties. On 8-8-1963 an order under Section 144 was passed restraining the opposite parties from interference with the possession of the petitioner. On 12-11-1963 the learned Magistrate heard arguments of the advocate for both parties and passed the following order.As this relates to a land dispute and the parties are disputing over possession on the same land for the last two years it is desirable that a finding can be given in case this is converted into a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The lan...
Tag this Judgment!Lengu Satchidananda Misra and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-25-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ849
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. Each of the petitioners has been convicted under Section 447, I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 15 days.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners held a meeting on 12.2.1962 in the premises of the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bargarh, and gave speeches through a mike and thereby caused annoyance to the Deputy Collector (P.W. 1) and his head clerk (P.W. 2) and as a result of the said meeting, such a disturbance was created that no person in the office of P.W. 1 could work. P.W. 2 brought this fact to the notice of the Second Officer P.W. 3, 'who directed P.W. 2 to lodge information before the Police and to direct the organizers of the meeting to stop the meeting and to change its venue. P.W. 1 lodged F.I.R. (Ext. 1) and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners under Section 447, I.P.C.3. The plea of the accused petitioners was that they did not hold the meeting in the office premises of the Section D.O., nor did t...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnakar Naik and ors. (Second Party Nos. 1 to 3) Vs. Golakh Chandra S ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori56; 1966CriLJ279
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Second party Nos. 1 to 3 arc the petitioners. The proceeding is one under Section 147, Cr. P.C. It is unnecessary to refer to the facts in detail as the case is being remanded.2. Mr. Mohanty raised two contentions: (i) That the final order passed on 17-5-1964 is not a speaking order, and, as such, is liable to be quashed; and(ii) After the final order had been passed on 17-5-1964, the Magistrate had no further jurisdiction to pass a reasoned order on 30-6-1964 which must accordingly he ignored.Both the contentions require careful consideration. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions, the order dated 17-5-1964 may be extracted.'I hold that the second party did not exercise right of user within three months prior to the date of institution of the proceeding and is accordingly prohibited to exercise such right on the land under proceeding.'Mr. Ray, however, contended that an order under Section 147, Cr. P.C. is not a judgment within the meaning of Sections 366 and...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Bisoi and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-21-1965
Reported in: 1965CriLJ830
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. This revision is directed against an order dated 3-4-1964 of the S. D. O., Bhanjanagar. The entire order is extracted hereunder:All the respondents except Pana and Harischandra Bisoi are present. S. R. not back. The accused party has filed written statements. The C. S. I. wants interim bonds to be taken from the members of the second party, as the O.I. C., Bhanjanagar has alleged certain overt acts against the members of the second party. The second party members to execute an interim bond of Rs. 500/-.The order itself shows that the Magistrate directed the members of the second party to execute an interim bond merely because the Court Sub-Inspector wanted him to do so on the allegation of the Officer-in-charge, Bhanjanagar about certain overt acts.2. The order is directly contrary to the provisions of Section 117 (3), Criminal P. C. Under the sub-section, pending completion of the enquiry under Sub-section (1) the Magistrate, 'if he considers that immediate measu...
Tag this Judgment!Jahara Panigrahi Vs. Ula Panigrahi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Ori199; 1965CriLJ660
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Petitioner filed a complaint against the opposite parties alleging that the son of the petitioner and some other persons were bringing their paddy from the field on 12-12-1961 when the opposite parties removed the paddy from their custody and kept them in their own thrashing floor. Police seized the paddy from the thrashing floor of the accused on 11-1-1962. The accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Sections 379 and 477, Penal Code on 17-12-1963. No appeal was filed and the order of acquittal became final. The complainant filed an application before the Magistrate under Section 517, Criminal P. C. for return of the sale proceeds of the paddy seized from the thrashing floor of the accused on 11-1-1962. The Magistrate passed the following order on 22-2-1964 :'The complainant and the accused persons put their respective application to take delivery of the seized paddy deposited in the Court in form of cash after sale. The paddy was seized from the thras...
Tag this Judgment!Hemchandra Dansana Vs. Dolamani Dansana and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Ori188
Misra, J. 1. Defendant is the appellant against a confirming judgment. The relation of the parties would appear from the following genealogical tree. MAHENDRA DANSANA =Kanchan(widow) _______________|___________________ | | Rahumani Hemcahdra | (deftd.) ___________________|_________________________ | | | Dolamani Budhu Shankar (Plff-1) (Plff-2) (Plff-3) | Pyari((Plff-4)Mahendra was the protected Thikadar of village Bhairapur in Barpalli Zamindari. After his death, Raghumani became the protected Thikadar and possessed all the SIR and KHUDKAST lands of the village. In a partition between Raghumani and the defendant the disputed property was allotted to their mother Kanchan towards her maintenance. The plaintiffs' case is that it was agreed that the disputed land would revert to Raghumani after the death of Kanchan. She died in 1952 and thereafter the lands reverted to plaintiff No. 1 who was the Thikadar after his father's death. The lands were subsequently partitioned amongst the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Pangi Jogi Naik and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Ori205; 1965CriLJ661
Barman, A.C.J.1. Pangi Jogi Naik and Pangi Bisu Naik, who are both brothers were convicted on a charge of murder of Pangi Krishna and his wife Pangi Muthei on the night of 16th September 1963, and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge of Koraput.2. The motive for the murder is said to be hostility due to some land dispute between the parties. The weapon used for committing the murder is said to be tangia (M O I) which caused an incised punctured wound. The tangia was found to be stained with human blood, according to the Serologist's report.3. The accused persons (appellants) totally denied their complicity in the crime ; their case is that due to previous enmity they have been falsely implicated in this case.4. On 6 (16?) September 1963, the deceased Pangi Krishna and his wife, the deceased Pangi Muthei were sleeping with their four children including two boys, namely Pangi P. W. 1 Pangi Dora aged 15 years and P. W. 2 Pangi Rama aged about 12 years, in one room, the doors o...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Samant Vs. Raja Sri Birachandra Jadumani Deo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Ori222; 1965CriLJ796
Barman, Ag. C.J.1. The point which gives rise to this appeal is whether the appellant, who was the Sarpanch of the Gram Punchayat of village Rampur, was guilty of disobedience of an order of injunction passed by Court in art arbitration case to which he was not a party. The matter arose under the circumstances hereinafter stated.2. The Raja and Ruler of the State of Rairak-hole in the Eastern States Agency (Orissa) had ceded to the Dominion of India as a result of the agreement between the Raja and the Governor General in Council. Under the said agreement that Raja was granted full ownership, use and enjoyment of all 'private properties' belonging to him from the date of the agreement. Subsequently the Raja was intimated about the decision of the Union of India to the effect that village Rampur was conceded to the Raja except the building used for public purposes before the date of the agreement and about similar concessions with regard to some other villages.3. It is said that the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Kunu Alias Muralidhar Padhan and ors. Vs. Budhu Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori71; 1966CriLJ430
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. This Reference made by the Sessions Judge, Bolangir-Kalahandi, arises under the following circumstances.2. The complaint Budhu Sahu of village Musapali in the district of Kalahandi claims to have married Mst. Ukia some years back and lived as husband and wife for about two years. Accused Narayan is the father of Ukia. One day Narayan and his wife and accused Janga came to the house of the complainant and took away Ukia on the pretext that her brother was seriously ill. When the complainant went to his father-in-law's house to bring back his wife, they refused to leave her with him and subsequently gave Ukia in marriage to Kunu alias Muralidhar of village Deodharha in the district of Bolangir where both of them lived as husband and wife.3. The complainant filed a criminal case under sections 497 and 498, I.P.C. against the accused persons on 27-7-60 in the Court of the S.D.M. Nawapara in Kalahandi District. The accused persons, however, were discharged under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishanlal Sahu Vs. Madhabananda Pani
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-06-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Ori180; 1965CriLJ525
R.K. Das, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner. The facts that gave rise to this revision petition may briefly be stated as follows : There was some dispute between the parties over a shop at Chanclbali and a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P. C. was also pending. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit (O. S. No. 4 o 1961-III) in the Court of the Subordinate 'Judge of Balasore. After filing of the said suit, the plaintiff made an application for appointment of a pleader-commissioner for preparing an inventory of the articles and the account books in respect of the disputed shop at Chandbali. A pleader Commissioner was appointed and he made a list of the said articles and forwarded the same to the court and kept the articles in the custody of the plaintiff. On the petitioner's furnishing security the court directed the return of the said articles to him. Subsequently the trial Court directed another pleader-commissioner to go to the shop and take charge of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›