Orissa Court December 1965 Judgments
State Vs. Man Mohan Lal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori219; 1966CriLJ1301
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. The learned courts below have passed common orders in all the four cases. It is unnecessary to give facts of all the four cases. It would be sufficient to refer to the facts in G. R. Case No. 385 of 1962. The connected proceedings arising out of this case in which the question of transfer was considered at previous stages are Misc. Case No. 8 of 1966 in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Cuttack, Criminal Revision No. 269 of 1965 in the High Court, Criminal Revision No. 8 of 1965 in the court of the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, and Criminal Revision No. 459 of 1965 in the High Court. A chart was supplied by Mr. Parida, counsel for the Vigilance Department. No exception has been taken to correctness of that chart by Mr. Mohanty for the accused. The facts narrated in this Criminal Revision is on the basis of that Chart.The charge against the accused is under Section 420/120B- I.P.C. The prosecution case is that the accused contracted to supply ...
Tag this Judgment!Ude Singh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori210; 1966CriLJ1297
BARMAN, J.1. Ude Singh and Thakur Singh both aged about 25-26 vears were convicted on a charge of having murdered Swaran Singh aged about 22 vears and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The two accused persons, the deceased and some others were all labourers working in the D B K Railway Project, hailing from East Punjab and camping at village Cherupali, district Bolangir for construction of a bridge on river Ang. On the night of February 5, 1963 at about 8 p.m. the two accused persons were quarrelling between themselves. It is said that their leader Jamadar Lambar Singh P.W. 'went to the two accused persons and asked them not to quarrel and stop making hulla. The accused persons however did not listen. It was then that the deceased Swaran Singh who is said to be nephew of Jamadar Lambar Singh went to the accused persons and asked them to stop making hulla The prosecution case is that it was at this stage when Swaran Singh had come to intervene in the quarrel between the two accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Gochhikar and anr. Vs. Gadhadhar Pujapanda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori195; 1966CriLJ1173
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. The accused persons are the petitioners The revision arises under the following circumstances.2. A complaint was filed on 11-11-1963 under Ss 323 and 123/34 I. P. C. Cognizance was taken on the same date, and the ease was posted to 16-12-1963 for appearance of the accused Some of the prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined before charge on 5-5-1964 and 5-0-1904. A charge was framed on 22-11-1964 (Sic) On 12-9-64 the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined after charge. On 24-11-64 the doctor was examined, cross-examined and discharged On 11-12-64 the accused was examined under Section 342 and 31-12-64 was fixed for the defence In the meanwhile on 21 12-64 the petitioners filed an application under Section 257. Cr P C. for summoning the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination and the Magistrate directed the petition to he put up on 4-1-65 for consideration On that day he allowed the petition of the accused and directed the prosecution wit...
Tag this Judgment!The Puri Municipal Council Vs. Bana Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-23-1965
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1675
R.K. Das, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of a Magistrate, 1st Class, Puri, acquitting the respondent of an offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. On 8-3-63. P. W. 1, the Food Inspector, Puri Municipality, purchased half a seer of cow's milk and half a seer of buffalo's milk from the accused, a milk-hawker, on payment of usual price, and obtained a receipt (Ext. 2) from him He divided the cow's milk into three parts and put them into three bottles adding two drops of formalin to each ounce of milk by way of preservative. He then sealed the bottles, gave one bottle to the accused, sent one bottle to the Public Analyst for chemical analysis, keeping one with himself. The Public Analyst by his report, Ext. 3 reported that the milk was adulterated. Thereafter P. W. 1 after obtaining necessary sanction from the District Magistrate, submitted a prosecution report (Ext. 4), under Section 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Prabhulal Harilal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori213
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1.There is no dispute over most of the facts. Plaintiff claimed Rs 353.25 P for short delivery of 157 Kgs. of refined groundnut oil out of 660 tins booked from Wadi Bunder in Maharashtra to Balasore. The tins were packed with straw tied with ropes, but were not packed in wooden cases. Plaintiff's case is that the shortage is due to negligence and misconduct on the part of the servants of the defendants.2. The defence case is that loading andunloading of the consignment which was awhole-load wagon was done by the sender andconsignee at the forwarding and destinationstations respectively. The tins were not packed in cases or crates as required under theRailway Rules. The forwarding notes contained the following remarks :--' Tins new. Not packed in oases. Packed with grass and fixed by rope 'The consignment reached the destination station with seals intact. Thus, the admitted position on facts is that the senders consigned the goods and in their presence the wagon was r...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Narayan Singh Deo Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori214
Das, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter mentioned as 'the Act') by the Member, Board of Revenue. Orissa, as the Chief Revenue Administrative authority in the State The reference arises under the following circumstances :2. The petitioner Maharaja Shri R.N. Singh Deo is the Ruler of the ex-State of Bolangir which was merged in the State of Orissa by the well known Merger Agreement of 1947 and the administration of the said State was taken over by the Government of Orissa on 1-1-1948 In the year 1958 an Act was passed known as 'The Orissa Private Lands of Rulers (Assessment of Rent) Act XIII of 1958 (hereinafter mentioned as 'the Orissa Act') The object of this Act is to make provision for theassessment of rent in respect of the private lands of the Rulers in the State of Orissa. Under the provisions of the said Act, a proceeding (Miscellaneous Case No. 27/59) was started by the Additional Collector, Bolangir, as a Revenue Officer of the D...
Tag this Judgment!Moochia Naik Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-13-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ori36; 1967CriLJ393
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 290, I. P. C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days. On 13-3-65 the Officer-in-charge of Gangapur P. S. in the district of Ganjam found that the petitioner had stacked some logs on the public Danda (road) causing obstruction in the movement of the public. The petitioner admitted stacking of the logs, but claimed that the site belonged to him and was not a public place. The learned Magistrate held :(i) The site where the logs were stacked was a paramboke. (ii) The width of the entire paramboke site was 36 links and the logs had been stacked on a space of 10 links in width. (iii) The public were feeling inconvenience in their movement and as such the logs caused obstruction to the public as deposed to by P. Ws. 1 and 3. 2. It may be noted that for such an offence the accused could be convicted under Section 283. I. P. C., and the residual Section 290 I. P. C., has...
Tag this Judgment!Padia Patra and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori199; 1966CriLJ1176
Misra, J.1. Padia Patra has been convicted under Section 302, I. P C and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Mahichandra Patra and Muruli Patra have been convicted Under Section 326 I.P.C and each has been sentenced to R I. for two years. All the three have been convicted Under Section 148 I. P. C. but no separate sentence has been awarded under this section. The rest of the accused persons have been convicted Under Section 325/149 I. P C. (obviously a mistake for 326/149 I. P. C.) and each has been sentenced to R. I. for one year. They were further convicted Under Section 147 1 P. C. but no separate sentence has been passed under this section. All of them have been charged Under Section 302/149 I P C Though in the body of the judgment the learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that accused 2 to 8 were not guilty under this charge, he did not pass any final order acquitting them of this charge.2. One Java Patra had two wives. Through the first wife he had a son Badu the father of Chandr...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Patra Vs. Sudhanshu Bala Patra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-06-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori224
Ahmad, C.J.1. This is a reference made under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 (Act IV of 1869) by the District Judge of Cuttack-Dhenkanal, for confirmation of his judgment annulling the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent.2. The parties are Christians by faith and are governed by the Indian Divorce Act. The petitioner Arun Kumar Patra is a present resident of Cuttack, and the respondent comes from a family of Jamshedpur. It is not disputed that they were on the 17th April, 1959, married at Jamshedpur. At that time the age of the petitioner was about 25 years while that of the respondent was about 22 years. Hardly after marriage they had lived together in Cuttack for about three weeks that the present dispute began between the parties. The grievance made by the petitioner is that the respondent is impotent in relation to him and suffered from malformation in her physique and sex organ rendering marital relationship impossible It is not denied that there was never any...
Tag this Judgment!Aintha Stree and anr. Vs. Mahapatra Balaram Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ori57
Ahmad, C.J.1. The dispute in this case relates to 5.61 acres of land appertaining to holding No. 601 of village Kharagprasad, described in Schedule B of the plaint. The holding No. 601, of which the land in dispute forms a part originally belonged to two brothers Bana Senapali and Kalia Scnapati. Bana Senapati had four daughters two of whom died long time back. The remaining two daughters have been impleaded in the present suit as defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. Defendants Nos. 1 to 8 are the heirs and successors of Kalia Senapali. The case of the plaintiffs (who are the respondents here) is that Bana Senapati had adopted a son Gundicha. This Gundicha was married to one Gava (defendant No. 9) and had by her a son named Kodanda. Therefore, on the death of Bana Senapati his half interest in holding No. 601 was inherited by the adopted son Gundicha. Gundicha died long time back, leaving behind him his widow. Gava (defendant No. 9) and his son Kodanda.Kodanda is also now dead and, on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›