Orissa Court April 1966 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Biswanath Satpathy Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-28-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori46; 1967CriLJ506
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. On the night of 17-5-68 some unknown culprits committed theft in the house of the petitioner and removed cash amounting to Rs. 2081-00 including some G. C. notes as also some prize-bonds. F. I. R. being lodged by the petitioner, P. W. 4 the Officer-in-charge, Sadar Police Station, registered a case. In course of investigation he arrested three of the accused persons who are said to have given recovery of a sum of Rs. 1307 and also two prize-bonds. After charge-sheet, the accused persons were sent up for trial for offences under Section 380, Section 411 and Section 457, Indian Penal Code.2. The plea of the accused was one of a denial.3. The trial court acquitted accused Bharat Bhoi, but convicted the other two, viz. Jai Bhoi and Bai alias Bihari Bhoi under Section 411, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for one year each and directed the recovered property to be returned to the lawful owner.4. On appeal being preferred by the accused persons, the A...
Bhikari Charan Sahu Vs. Chhima Basic School and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori44
S. Barman, J.1. This appeal filed by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for declaration of title, possession and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit land consisting of two plots being plot No. 273 with an area of 0.017 decimals and plot No. 273/954 with an area of 0.006 dec. total area being 0.023 decimals which originally belonged to one Gunduchi Sahu.2. The plaintiff is a purchaser of the suit land from Gunduchi Sahu by a registered sale deed Ex. 4 dated May 5, 1961. Defendant No. 1 is the Chhima Basic School represented by defendant No. 2 Jaykrishna Mohanty, Secretary; defendant No. 3 is the organiser, Basic Education, Orissa at village Angul and defdt. No. 4 Padma Gharan Sahu is the son of plaintiff's vendor Gunduchi, who in fact, is a pro forma defendant against whom no relief is asked for in the plaint.3. The plaintiff's case is this. As aforesaid on May 5, 1961, he purchased the suit land from Gunduchi. The plaintiff was obstructed by defdts. 1 and 2 in getting posse...
Puna Paitala and anr. Vs. Sudarsan Paital
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ori227
S. Barman, J.1. This appeal filed by defendants arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for partition. The suit property consists of three plots namely, 1210 (Bari land) 19 decimals, 1211 (home stead Ghara) 2 decimals and plot No. 1212 (Gahira) 3 decimals--the total area being 24 dec.2. One Laxman Pattal had 2 sons Basi and Sunakar. Basil's son was Bauri and plaintiff Sudarsan is the son of Bauri. Thus plaintiff represents Basil's branch of family. Suna's son was Banchhanidhi; defdts 1 and 2 are the sons of Banchhanidhi. Thus defendants 1 and 2--Panu and Bishnu respectively represent Suna's branch of family.3. The plaintiff's case is that two branches of Basu and Suna were joint; after the death of Basu's son Bauri, Suna's son Banchhanidhi became the karta of the family. In 1932, out of plot No. 1210, 8 decimals were sold by both the branches to two different persons namely Kumar Sahu and Gajendra Sahu who are not parties in the suit. In 1937, Banchhanidhi sold by Ext. 1, 6 decimal...
Balmiki Sahu Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori66; 1967CriLJ797
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. This is a Reference made by the Additional District Magistrate (judicial). Ganjam, recommending to quash the proceedings in certain criminal cases (U. C. Cases Nos. 90, 122, 123 and 173 of 1956) pending in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Chatrapur, against the petitioner Balmiki Sahu, owner of a public service Motor Vehicle.2. The motor taxi O. R. G. 1553 of which the petitioner is the owner, was found carrying on four different dates, passengers in excess of the seating capacity of the vehicle as specified in the permit. The petitioner and the driver of the vehicle were both prosecuted under Sections 112 and 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to ns 'the Act') and 4 separate cases were started against them. The Sub Divisional Magistrate. Chatrapur, took cognisance of the offence under Sections 112 and 123 of the Act and summoned both the accused persons. In some of the aforesaid cases, the accused driver appeared and admitted his guilt an...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›