Court : Orissa
Reported in : 34(1968)CLT215; 1968CriLJ1251
S. Barman, C.J.1. All these criminal appeals were heard analogously as they are directed against the same judgment of conviction and sentence dated 9.4.65 passed by Sri B.R. Rao Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in sessions trial No. 99/16 (Sgh) of 1964.2. All the appellants in these three appeals and some others, 38 accused in all, were charged under Sections 148, 302/149, 328/149, 436/149 and 201/149, Penal Cole in the aforesaid sessions trial. The second Additional sessions Judge acquitted 28 of them and convicted all these ten appellants under Sections 148, 302/149, 326/149, 436/149, and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302/149, R.I. for three years on each count under Sections 326/149 and 436/149, and one year each under Section 148, Penal Code and directed the sentences to run concurrently.3. Criminal Appeal No. 108/65 has been pretender by Herun Tirkey, son of Marqus Tirkey, Criminal Appeal No. 111/65 has been preferred by Haran Tirkey, Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1968Ori84
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. The disputed land measuring 1.01 acre was acquired. The petitioner claimed the entire disputed land as belonging to him. The Land Acquisition Officer negatived his claim and held that the opp. parties were entitled to compensation. The award was prepared and signed on 12-12-64. On 15-12-64 the petitioner filed an application praying that the matter may be referred by the Collector to the District Judge for determination of the person to whom the compensation is payable. The Land Acquisition Officer in his order dated 29-12-64 held that the petitioner failed to establish that he had any interest in the acquired property. The revision is filed against this order refusing to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Mr. Ranjit Mohanty contended that the petitioner is a 'person interested' within the meaning of the expression in Section 3(b) of the Act and that the Land Acquisition Officer acted in exc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1968Ori82; 34(1968)CLT181; 1968CriLJ646
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. One Narasingha Pasayat had five sons -- Khedu, Dhananjoy, Sridhar, Balka and Pandaki. Khema is the son of Khedu. Hema and Ketaki are the daughters of Khedu. Sridhar's widow is Nurabati and son Mahendra. The case of the first party is that the disputed lands which constitute a part of holding No. 13 in village Haladi-pali belong to Narsingh. Dhananjoy, Balka and Pandaki died in a joint family without leaving any issue. Khedu and Khema died leaving Mahendra as the sole surviving coparcener. Mahendra sold away some portions of holding No. 13 for a consideration of Rs. 7000 and executed a registered sale deed on 27-1-1965 in favour of Ramkumar Agarwalla, member, first party, who was in possession till the date of the preliminary order.2. The case of the second party members is that Khedu and his brothers were all divided and were in separate cultivating possession of their respective shares. By a registered deed of gift dated 22-5-1947, Khema and Dhananjoy transferred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1968Ori75; 34(1968)CLT255
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. The petition has been filed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for declaring the election of the respondent void under Section 100(1) (b) and (d)(iii) and (iv) of the Act.2. In respect of the Rayagada Assembly Constituency in the district of Kora-put, the petitioner, the respondent and one Sri Jhiru Judia were the validly nominated candidates. Respondent was declared elected from the said constituency with a margin of 949 votes. He secured 8641 votes while the petitioner secured 7692 votes. A large number of grounds were taken in the petition, but as the case proceeded ex parte, evidence was not led in respect of some of the grounds. It is, therefore, unnecessary to state the material facts narrated in the petition in respect of the grounds on which no evidence was led. Only on two grounds mentioned in the petition evidence has been led. They are -(i) corrupt practice was resorted to by the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1968Ori167; 1968CriLJ1190
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Ganiam in appeal. The respondents were convicted by the learned Trial Magistrate under Section 147 I. P. C. and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, to undergo R. I for one month each. They were also convicted under Sections 324 and 325 read with Section 149 I P. C and each of them was sentenced to undergo R. I. for three months under each count The sentences were tc run concurrently2. The prosecution case may be stated in brief At about 4 p m., on the 24th January 1964. the suearcane crop of Dandapani Samanta Rai (P. W. 3) was damaged by a pair of buffaloes belonging to Sania Bhuyan (Respdt. 11). The buffaloes were tied to be taken to the pound. It resulted in a quarrel between P. W. 4 son of P. W. 3 and Duryodhan Padhan (Respdt. 1). P. W. 3 intervened. At the bidding of Duryodhan all the other accused who were his party-men came armed with...
Tag this Judgment!