Orissa Court November 1967 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.
Somanath Mohanty Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ori72a; 34(1968)CLT209; 1968CriLJ643
ORDERS.K. Ray, J.1. This is an application in revision filed by the sole petitioner against an order dated 28-4-66 passed by Sri. S. K. Patro, Sessions Judge. Puri, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by Sri B. B. Das, Magistrate. 1st Class Khandapara dated 20-7-54.2. The brief facts of the case an that on 12-6-63 at about 4 p.m. the petitioner overheard a conversation between the informant (P. W 1) and P. W 2 that the homestead property of the former was going to be sold in execution of a decree against him and that he was in difficulty on that account, and introduced himself to P. W. 1 as a clerk working in the land-mortgage bank, Sunduria, and volunteered to save the situation by procuring a loan of Rs. 150/- from the said bank for P. W 1, provided he was remunerated with a sum of Rs. 25/- for his services. Being induced by the representation and promise of the accused. P. W. 1 who had no money with him approached P. W. 6, a Miitri in the tile-factory where P. W. ...
Fulchand Agarwalla Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-10-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ori109; 34(1968)CLT34; 1968CriLJ954
Barman, C.J. 1. The petitioner is the brother of two detenus Puranmal Agarwalla and Srikishan Agarwalla of Kesinga in Kalahandi District, both detained in Boudh Sub-Jail under two impugned orders (in identical terms) dated August 18. 1967 passed b the District Magistrate of Phulbani under Section 3(1) (a) (iii) of the Preventive Detention Act 1950 (Central Act IV of 1960-hereinafter referred to as the Act) upon being satisfied, with respect of the said two detenus, that with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community, it was necessary to make the said impugned orders. The said impugned orders are challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the 'grounds' on which they were made are vague and further that no opportunity was afforded to the said detenus ot making a representation against the impugned orders 2. Section 3(1) (a) (iii) of the Act is this: '3(1). The Central Government or the State Governme...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›