Orissa Court November 1965 Judgments
Purna Chandra Behera Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-27-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori106; 1966CriLJ571
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. The petitioner was Convicted under Section 409, I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default, to R. I. for six months. Out of the fine, if realised, the Kuliana Gram Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the Panchayat) was directed to get a sum of Rs. 700. In appeal, the order of conviction was maintained and so also the sentence of fine with the direction regarding payment of Rs. 700, if realised. But the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to a period of six months only.2. Prosecution case is that, the petitioner was the Sarpanch of the Panchayat. He as a public servant committed criminal breach of trust of Rs. 3,185 from the Panchayat Fund. In 1960, Government had sanctioned the construction of Women Teachers quarters at Kuliana. The petitioner undertook to execute the work at Rs. 2,500. On 27th February 1960 he executed a written agreement (Ex. 3) in favour of the S.D.M., Baripada. He received a sum of Rs. 2,400 as ...
Tag this Judgment!Upendranath Kanungo and ors. Vs. State at the Instance of Hadibandhu K ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori75; 1966CriLJ432
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. On the report submitted by the Officer-in-Charge, Chowduar Police Station, the S. D. O. Sadar, Cuttack drew up a proceeding under Section 107, Cr. P. C. on 21st March 1964. He made an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received which was to the effect that on account of village party faction the members of the second party have formed a strong combination against the members of the first party and have been committing various overt acts leading to breach of peace. He issued notices to the members of the second party to appear in his court to show cause as to why each of them should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 500 with one surety for the like amount to keep the peace for a period of one year. This order was manifestly passed under Section 112, Cr. P. C. On 25th April 1964 the members of the first party filed an application praying for calling upon the members of the second party to execute interim bonds under Section 117 (3...
Tag this Judgment!Bandu Padhan and anr. Vs. Bamdeb Senapati and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ori5; 1967CriLJ227
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. Bamdeb Senapati, opp. parly No. 1, is the complainant in a criminal case under Section 323, I. P. C. against the petitioners and opp. party No. 2. Opp. parties 1 and 2 have already entered into a compromise and opp. party 2 has been acquitted. Petitioners alleged that on 8-6-66 there was a compromise between them and opp. party 1. A compromise petition was written and signed by the parties and their advocates Mr. A.K. Rao, himself was the advocate for the petitioners and he states that he himself signed the compromise petition. It could not be filed in Court on that day as it was late and the case had been adjourned to 21-5-65 The complainant promised to file the compromise petition on 21-5-65. but failed to do so The Presiding Officer of the Court was absent on 21-5-65 and the case was adjourned to 19-6-65. On that day the petitioners filed an application to direct the complainant to file the compromise petition in Court and on its basis to pass an order of acqu...
Tag this Judgment!Sukedeb Barik Vs. Panchan Barik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ori11; 1967CriLJ228
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 420, I. P. C., and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to R. I. for 2 months. Petitioner Sukadeb Barik and the complainant-opposite party Panchanan Barik are residents of village Andola. Prosecution case is that the petitioner contracted to sell 5 decimals of his Gharabari (homstead) to the opposite party for Rs. 376. The entire consideration was paid on 21-6-64. Next day the petitioner executed the sale-deed (Ex. 1) and presented it for registration before the Sub-registrar at Chandhali.Registration was effected. Without handing over the registration ticket to the complainant for taking delivery of the sale-deed, the petitioner left the place surreptitiously. Later on in the village the petitioner declared that the properly, covered by Ex. 1, belongs to his wife. Prosecution case is that the petitioner deceived the opposite party by fraudulently inducing him to pay Rs. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Behera and ors. Vs. Purna Chandra Mahanta and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori170; 1966CriLJ935
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioners are members of the first party in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The dispute is over the possession of a tank with an area 2.77 acres. It stands on plots Nos. 317, 318, 390, 391, 374 and 375 appertaining to khata No. 19 in village Chutiaposi in the district of Keonjhar. Admittedly these plots stand recorded in the name of the Government The case of the first party is that their fore-fathers excavated the tank at their own expenses and that they are in possession of cultivable lands surrounding it which arc irrigable by its waters. They claim fishery right in it. In their written statement they allege that sometime in 1942, the ex-Stale of Keonjhar recognised their rights in it Without any semblance of right the second party members wanted to create disturbance in their possession and accordingly the present proceeding has been started2. The second party members are mostly villagers of Chutiaposi. They allege that the disputed tank belong...
Tag this Judgment!Rameswarlal Khandelwalla Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori164; 1966CriLJ933
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. This is a petition to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petitioner was prosecuted under Rule 41 of the Defence of India Rules 1962.2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner who is to he a dealer in Kerosene in Nilgiri in the district of Balasore, sold a tin of white kerosene to one Gopinath Behera for Rs 20/- which is much in excess of the authorised price, and thereby committed prejudicial act within the meaning of Clause 35 (6) (i) of the Defence of India Rules. After charge-sheet was submitted, the bail application was moved on behalf of the petitioner and it was rejected by the S.D.O Nilgiri by his order dated 15-10-65 on the ground that Kerosene is an essential commodity and the materials on record disclosed that the petitioner sold kerosene at a much higher rate than the prevailing market price His application for hail before the Sessions Judge having also been rejected, the petitioner has come up to this Court with this petition to enlarge him on bail....
Tag this Judgment!Lokanath Panda Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-13-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori205; 1966CriLJ1180
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted Under Sections 380 and 457, I.P.C and sentenced to R.I. for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month more Under Section 380 I.P.C. No separate sentence has been passed Under Section 457 I.P.C. There was a direction for return of the seized cash to the complainant.2. On 24-1-64 P.W. 6, son of the complainant (P.W. 11), borrowed Rs. 1000 from P.W. 9 of Sundargarb town From Sundargarh town P.W 6 came to his own village Telijoro in the company of the accused. The accused is a resident of ex-State of Narsinghpur. He carried on the business of a book-seller in the district of Sundargarh. While he comes to the village of P.W. 11, he used to stay in his house. On the way from Sundargarh, P.W. 6 told the accused that he had borrowed Rs. 1000. The accused also was present while P.W. 6 handed over the cash to his mother. The amount was kept by the mother in a box in the bed room of P.W. 11.On 25-1-6...
Tag this Judgment!Murarilal Garg Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-02-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori87; 1966CriLJ565
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner is a storing agent at three places, Deogarh, Barkote and Gagua. He had procured food grains licenses. Prosecution case is that though under the licence the petitioner was to maintain a register of daily accounts for each of the food-grains showing correctly the opening and the closing stock of each day, he failed to do so. Though the petitioner did not plead guilty, in his examination under Section 342, Cr. P. C. he did not deny the fact that he did not maintain the accounts at Barkote in accordance with the license. The petitioner was summarily tried under Section 12A of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and was convicted under Section 7(1)(a) of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default to undergo Rule I. for one year. The Revision has been filed against the order of conviction and sentence.2. Mr. Das docs not dispute the finding of the fact that the petitioner did not maintain accounts in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›