Orissa Court July 1966 Judgments
Khali and ors. Vs. Sadhaba Bewa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori58; 33(1967)CLT65
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. On 24-2-66 arguments in the suit were heard and the case was posted for judgment to 3-3-66. On that day the learned Munsif passed a queer and unprecedental order, which may be extracted:'After going through the pleadings and the evidence adduced. I find that the evidence led by the plaintiff does not speak in terms of the plaint allegations. Such variation is due to the fact that after the institution of the suit some more circumstances have been cropped up.. .. . Therefore in order to read the evidence in terms of pleadings. I feel that it would he just and necessary to give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the plaint. In the interest of justice and in order to keep the evidence In par with the pleadings, the plaintiff is given an opportunity to amend his plaint.'In accordance with the direction of the learned Munsif, plaintiff filed an application for amendment which was opposed. Ultimately the amendment was allowed on 25-3-1966. It is against this order th...
Tag this Judgment!Bisikesan Suna Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori4; 1967CriLJ100
ORDERG.K. Misra, J 1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 380, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. Prosecution case is that the Settlement Patwari, Chudamani Mahananda and his chainman Hinaketan Giri (P.W. 4) were putting up in the Deraghar of village Bhagatpur in the district of Sambalpur. Gayadhar Nariha (P.W. 1) was guarding the Deraghar during their absence on the field and was also cooking food for them. The petitioner was a sworn friend of Chudamani. He stayed with the Patwari with the hope of getting the post of a Chainman. The Revenue Inspector asked the Patwari and the villagers including the Gountia not to keep the petitioner in the Deraghar as the Patwari and the Chainman were being fed by the villagers and the stay of the petitioner meant further expenses for them. The petitioner was accordingly driven out on 3-1-64. On 4-1-04, the Patwari and P.W.. 4 left the Deraghar for the field work. They locked the Deraghar keeping inside i...
Tag this Judgment!Dutia Patel and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-14-1966
Reported in: 33(1967)CLT611; 1968CriLJ421
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Prosecution case is that on 11.5.64 at about 11 A.M. the Sarpanch (P.W. 1) of village Kamthana Gram Panchayat, the Naib Sarpanch (P.W. 2) and the President (P.W. 8) of the Grain Gola issued tickets for catching fish from a Kata in village Borbhata. The petitioners amongst others purchased tickets and entered inside the tank for catching fish. They were not able to catch fish and demanded return of the money paid for the tickets from P.W. 1. On his refusal to return the money back, the petitioners surrounded him and abused in filthy language saying:Sala Maghia, Tor Maku Gihabu, Salar Dadhlra Diasili Maridebu, Salaku Pani Bhitare Kaduare Madi Debu.In other words they said that they would have sexual intercourse with the mother of P.W. 1, would set fire to his beard and would kill him by trampling him down inside the water. The defence was one of complete denial.2. Eights witnesses were examined for the prosecution. The learned Magistrate, after thorough discussion o...
Tag this Judgment!Bali and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-11-1966
Reported in: 33(1967)CLT152; 1968CriLJ568
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. In title suit No. 8 of 1960 in the Court of the Munsif, Kendrapara, a receiver had been appointed for harvesting of paddy. On 10.4.64, the receiver filed an application before the learned additional Munsif that the petitioners forcibly removed the paddy which was kept in thrashing floor. The learned Munsif went into evidence, accepted the receiver's version and held that the paddy, was removed from the custody of the Court. He directed the filing of a complaint under Section 379, I.P.C. before the S.D.M., Kendrapara against the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge, Cuttack. The appeal was transferred to the Court of the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. Sri M.J. Rao, Addl. Sub-Judge, heard and dismissed the appeal. This revision has been filed on the appellate order.2. The only contention raised by Mr. Misra is that under Section 195(8), Criminal P.C. the Court of the Addl. Munsif, Kendrapara, is not subordinate to that of the Add...
Tag this Judgment!Mingular Mallik and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori24; 1967CriLJ233
Misra, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34, I. P. C., and each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. They are Kondhas. The deceased was a Pana. All the four belong to adjacent villages within a redius of half a mile. The deceased and the accused committed theft of gold and silver ornaments from the house of P. W. 1. The deceased divulged this fact to P. W. 1 alleging that the accused had kept the ornaments. P. W. 1 lodged information with the police on 15-7-1964. In the morning of 16-7-1964, the accused invited the deceased from his house to take the meat of pig. He was led inside a forest at Kamdaguda and was killed there with an axe (MO. I). The head and the body were completely severed and were recovered from two different pits at some distance from the very forest. The defence is one of denial.2. The learned Sessions Judge, on discussion of the evidence, held that the deceased was murdered by the accused and that the head and the trunk recov...
Tag this Judgment!Dula Majhi Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1236
S. Barman, Ag. C.J.1. The accused appellant Dula Majhi aged about 60 years was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life on a charge of having murdered his eldest son Kaghua Majhi aged about; 35 years by means of a katari, on July 14, 1964 in the mid-night while he was sleeping. The motive of the murder is said to be some dispute over property in the circumstances hereinafter stated:2. The accused had three sons Baghua, Majhi, the deceased, Ludhuia Majhi and Budban Majhi. It is said that the deceased separated from the accused and his two brothers, about three years ago and demanded a share out of the joint family property; the accused refused to give a share to the deceased and the son and the father are said to have been frequently quarrelling over this.3. On the date of occurrence on July, 14, 1964 sometime before evening while the deceased was plucking leaves from a Sajana Tree standing in their Bari the accused objected to it and there was a quarrel between them, later when...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›