Orissa Court September 1965 Judgments
Saila Behari Chatterjee Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori150
Das, J. 1. This appeal has been remanded by the Supreme Court for hearing on the limited question whether the order of suspension passed on the appellant on 28-7-49 by the State Government is invalid and ultra vires and if the appellant is entitled to any relief on this count.2. The appellant was appointed as a Sub-Deputy Collector on 11-12-39 by the Government of Orissa. He was promoted to the rank of a Deputy Collector on 8-2-46 and was posted as the Sub-Divisional Officer & Special Assistant Agent on 4-5-48 at Koraput. On 18-10-48 he was transferred to Sundargarh and held the post of a Sub-Divisional Officer. He was confirmed as Deputy Collector with effect from 1-1-1949.3. A case under Section 406, I. P. C. was pending in his Court against one Hitakrushna Sahu. It was alleged that the plaintiff officer demanded bribe from one Gopal Sahu, uncle of Hatakrushna. On 27-7-49, the Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh decided to lay a trap against the plaintiff and secured the assis...
Tag this Judgment!Jaga Kishan and ors. Vs. Benimadhab Supakar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori122; 1966CriLJ681
ORDERR.K. Das, J. 1. This revision application has been filed by the members of the second party against the order dated 31-10-64 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Sambalpur, in a , proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. declaring possession of the 1st party to the land in dispute. The 1st party Benimadhab Supakar claims possession of the disputed property on behalf of himself and his 4 sons, between whom there was an amicable partition in respect of some of the properties in dispute. The second party members represent different branches of the family and are eighty four in number. Originally the dispute was with regard to 71.81 acres of land, but later on the enquiring Magistrate excluded 38.41 acres from the score of pro-readings. Therefore the subject matter of the present proceeding is confined to 33.41 acres of land situate in village Madhupur in the district of Sambalpur. 2. The preliminary order under Section 145 (1) was passed on 22-7-63. It is admitted that the first party ...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnakar Das Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori102; 1966CriLJ568
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. This Revision arises out of G.R. Case No. 595 of 1963. It has a chequered career. Information to the police was given by the complainant on 28-3-63 about an occurrence of 27-3-63 at about 11 P.M. Police submitted a final report. On a protest being filed by the complainant, charge sheet under Sections 147/323 I.P.C. was called for against all the accused. The trial proceeded. On 4-3-64 Sri V. S. Rao, Magistrate, 1st Class, acquitted all the accused holding that the trial was illegal and without jurisdiction. The police did not challenge this order. In Cr. Rev. 167 of 1964 filed by the complainant, this order was quashed and the learned Magistrate was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. Though a Prosecuting Inspector is in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate has permitted an advocate of the complainant to conduct the case. In fact the main responsibility in the conduct of the case for the prosecution appears to be in the Advocate engage...
Tag this Judgment!Harekrushna Mohanty Vs. Adikando Behera
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori64; 1966CriLJ428
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. On 12-8-1964 Harekrushna Mpllanty filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Puri, against (1) Adikando Behera, Officer-in-charge, Town P.S., Puri (2) PrafuIIa Babu, Sub-Inspector, (3) Dijen Babu, Sub-Inspector (4) Goura Charan Mohapatra, Havildar and (5) Biswanath Patnaik, Havildar, under Sections 342, 352,354,426,427,447, 500 and 504 I.P.C. The main allegations were that on 10-8-64 at about 3 p. m. accused 2 and 4 served a notice under Section 145, Cr. PC on the complainant. At about 7 P.M. accused 2, 4 and 5 came to the residential house of the complainant and asked him to attend Thana saying that accused 1 had sent for him. At the P. S. the complainant was detained till 9 p.m. He was kept under Police guard and was asked to furnish bail. While he was at the P.S. for 2 to 3 hours, accused 1 with other accused came to his house, unlawfully trespassed therein and forcibly drove out his wife, daughter, sister and other inmates from the house a...
Tag this Judgment!Nila Naik and ors. Vs. Shyamsundar Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori95; 1966CriLJ566
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioners were convicted under Section 379.1. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. An appeal by them was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.2. It is unnecessary to give the facts in detail. Prosecution case is that the land was in possession of the complainant and that he grew paddy in 1963. On 1st December 1963 the petitioners forcibly entered into the land and cut and carried away the paddy. The defence is one of denial. Petitioners did not claim that they grew the paddy or were in possession of the land. They merely denied the reaping of the paddy by them and alleged that they were falsely implicated. The Courts below concurrently held that the complainant grewpaddy and that on the date of occurrence the petitioner cut and carried away the paddy dishonestly.3. In view of the defence, the only question that arose for consideration was whether the petitioners cut and carried...
Tag this Judgment!Karamsani Matari and ors. Vs. Natha Matarai
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori186; 1966CriLJ1039
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. The accused were convicted under Sections 147 and 379 I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15/- in default to 5 days R. I. Under Section 147 and to Rs. 30/- in default to 10 days R. I. under Section 379, by the Magistrate (Judicial) First Class, Padampur.2. Complainant Natha Maitri and the accused are agnates. Mahangu is the brother of Lochan. Natha is the grandson of Mahangu. Accused 3 to 5 are the sons of Lochan. Accused-1 is the son of accused-4. Accused-12 is the grandson of Lochan through another son Shyamsundar. Accused 6 and 7 are the field servants of the other accused.Prosecution case was that the disputed land fell to the share of the complainant in a family partition in 1947. Since then the complainant is in possession. He grew crops of the disputed land in 1962. The accused in a body unlawfully cut away the crop on 23-10-63. The defence as it appears from the statement under Section 342 Cr. P. C., is one of denial. To take a sampl...
Tag this Judgment!Bijoyananda Das and ors. Vs. Sirish Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori119; 1966CriLJ679
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. The facts of this case have been clearly stated in the orders of reference. The disputed land is the property belonging to the deity Raghunath Jiu. The members of the first party and second party members 1 to 5 are co-sebaits of the deity. In the written statement filed by the first party, it was stated that the entire body of co-sebayats were in joint possession of the disputed land, but that the second party members 6 to 22, in connivance with second party members 1 to 5 were trying to oust them from their lawful possession over the disputed land. The first party members filed an application for taking action under Section 145, Cr. P. C. as there was apprehension of breach of the peace. The case of second party members 6 to 22 was that the disputed land was settled with them on acceptance of salami by the entire body of the Sebayats of the deity and that they were in possession of different portions of the land settled with them in 1960. Though the settlement de...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa and ors. Vs. Jilludumudi Venkataraj
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori76
Ahmad, C.J.1. This appeal is by the defendants. It arises out of a suit for realisation of Rs. 905/- which was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants as security money for the due performance of the contract entered into between the parties under the document dated 18-2-57 which is Ex. 1 on the record and whereof Ext. E forms a part. Ext. E is a comprehensive act of rules for the guidance V of the forest officers and forest contractors in making contracts for the sale and purchase of forest produce. The plaintiff is a contractor and the aforesaid contract was given to him for collecting the minor forest produce, such as, tamarind, Mohuwa seeds and others from the Ravagada Unit in the Parlakhimedi Taluk. Thereunder the plaintiff was to remove the forest produce from the forest areas within the period from 22-2-57 till the end of 30-9-57.As a consideration for it he was to pay a sum of Rs. 9050/- in three instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 3018/- was payable on 1-3-57, the second ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›