Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1969Ori23; 1969CriLJ301
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Prosecution case Is that on 22nd of March, 1964 there was communal disturbance at Rajgangpur in the district of Sundargarh. The S. D. O., Sundargarh (P. W. 21) promulgated an order under Section 144 Cr. P. C. and imposed curfew prohibiting the inhabitants of Rajgangpur from holding any meeting or from coming out of their houses. In defiance of the order, a mob of about 3000 persons armed with deadly weapons started proceeding towards the Musalman Pada of Rajgangpur giving slogans that they would assault and kill the Muslims. P. W. 21,the local police and Orissa Military Police stationed themselves at a paddy field in between the Musalman Pada and the advancing mob. An order was proclaimed by the S. D. O. directing the mob to disperse. The mob took a defiant attitude and continued to advance. The S. D. O. accordingly ordered opening of fire. After the fire was opened, the mob dispersed and the rioters started running away in different directions. Police chased the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 34(1968)CLT236; 1968CriLJ123
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act No. 37 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250 in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. Prosecution case is that the petitioner was carrying adulterated milk for sale in Puri town on 15.6.63. The defence was that the milk was not being taken for sale and there was no adulteration. The learned Courts below concurrently found that the milk was adulterated.2. Mr. Harichandan advanced two contentions:(1) Prosecution infringed Rules 7 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) inasmuch as there is no proof that a specimen impression of the seal the packet was sent to the public Analyst separately and the Public Analyst compared the seal on the container and the outer cover with the specimen impression received separately. Infringement of these mandato...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 33(1967)CLT1158; 1968CriLJ121
G.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner is a shop-keeper at the daily market, Unit No. 1, New Capital, Bhubaneswar. At 9-50 a.m. on 30.11.1965, Sri B. Biswal, Food and Sanitary Inspector in the company of one D.S. Misra, Vigilance Sub-Inspector and R.K. Pal, A.S.I. of Police arrived at the shop of the petitioner. No independent witnesses were present. Sri V.S. Rao, Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhubaneswar went on mobile duty, followed the raiding party and remained at a distance. In presence of the Vigilance S.I. and the A.S.I., the Food and Sanitary Inspector seized 60 kg. of Motor (peas) and 10 Kgs of mustard oil. He submitted a prosecution report to the Magistrate Sri V.S. Rao giving the description of the offence thus:The accused is selling the food article such as Motor, Mustard Oil which is insect infested and the mustard Oil is adulterated by mixing foreign matters. Hence is noxious and unfit for human consumption. So the accused is liable for prosecution under Section 273, Penal Code-Motor-6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1968Ori35; 33(1967)CLT809; 1968CriLJ335
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Purnamasi Saraf and Abhimanyu Saraf, aged 11 and 9 years respectively, got an order of maintenance on 15-10-63 Under Section 488 Cr. P. C. against Jagannath Patra. A revision against that order was dismissed by this Court in 1964. The minors filed an application Under Section 488(3), Cr. P. C. for recovery of the arrears for the period from 5-10-63 to 5-4-65. The learned Magistrate issued a warrant for attachment of movable and immovable properties and of the body of Jagannath, Against this order Jagannath filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge at Bolangir who has made two recommendations thus --(i) That the issue of warrant of arrest before the warrant of attachment and sale of the properties failed to satisfy the arrears was illegal; and(ii) An amount for more than one year was not recoverable.2. Section 488(3) lays down that if any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1967Ori174; 33(1967)CLT843; 1967CriLJ1547
S. Barman, C.J.1. Food Inspector, Puri Municipality, has filed this appeal against an order or acquittal, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri, of the accused-respondent Rarna Gopal Agarwalla of a charge under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for having sold 750 Grams of Adulterated Harada Dal for a price of 37 paise at Municipal Market, Puri town. The defence of the accused-appellant is that the shop, from which the adulterated Harada Dal is said to have been sold, did not belong to him and that he was only sitting there.2. Suspecting adulteration of Harada Dal, which the accused was allegedly selling in his shop, the Food Inspector, Puri Municipality, on 17-7-1962, gave notice under Section (a) of the Act intending to purchase sample of, among other food articles, Harad Dal for analysis by the Public Analyst. The accused received a copy of the notice Ext. 1 which he signed. The servic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1968Ori60; 33(1967)CLT852
Barman, C.J.1. This is an application by the plaintiffs for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution of India. This arises out of T.S. No. 37 of 1959 for declaration of title and possession. The suit land comprising about 29 acres in Ankumi village of Sambalpur district was valued at Rs. 5100 when the suit was filed. On August 6, 1962, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. On September 12, 1962, the defendants filed an appeal being F. A. No. 51 of 1962. On December 23, 1964 the first appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. On January 25, 1965 the plaintiffs filed the present application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court On August 10, 1966 the leave application came up for hearing. It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs-applicants that although the valuation of the suit property was Rs. 5100 but it has now been revalued at not less than Rs. 20,000, Thereupon, this Court sent the matter to the tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 33(1967)CLT755; 1967CriLJ1427
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 379, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo R. I. for one month.2. The prosecution cage may be stated in brief. Petitioner is admittedly the bhag tenant in respect of the disputed land There was dispute between the landlords and the petitioner regarding yield of the land. An application was filed on 4.12.63 by landlord Kunjabehari Barik before the 0. T. B. Collector (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) for appraisement of the crop under Section 79 of the Orisaa Tenancy Act (herein after re. ferrel to as the Act). On 5.11.63 the Collector passed an order of attachment of the standing crop. The Revenue Inspector, in pursuance of the order, attached the standing crop on 10.11.63 and kept the property in the sima (custody) of Bhramar Dehuri (P. W. 1). On 18.11.63 the petitioner forcibly cut and removed the paddy despite protest from P. W. 1. The petitioner, in his defence, admitted t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1968Ori17; 33(1967)CLT787; 1968CriLJ199
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. The second party is the petitioner. The facts relevant to the point in issue may only be stated Parties filed documents and affidavits in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. On 4-2-66 opposite parties (first party members) proved some of their documents through witnesses. On 24-2-66, they proved some more documents through one Fakir Charan Mohanty who did not file any affidavit also. After his examination in chief was over, the petitioner cross-examined him with regard to the documents and merits. The learned magistrate allowed cross-examination with regard to documents, but not on merits Against this order, the revision has been filed.2. The learned magistrate was aware of the position that cross-examination need not be confined only to matters brought out in examination in chief. He was, however, of opinion that as Fakir did not swear any affidavit he could not depose with regard to merits, and as such could not be cross-examined on merits. The aforesaid view...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1968Ori31; 33(1967)CLT836; 1968CriLJ210
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted Under Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five days. Prosecution case is that on 5-1-1965 the petitioner was in a state of intoxication, abused and assaulted P. W. 2. (Welfare Inspector) at the Jharsuguda Railway Station.The petitioner in his statement Under Section 342, Cr. P. C. states that P. W. 2 had taken a loan of Rs. 10/- from him. On the date of occurrence he met him on the railway platform and demanded repayment This led to a quarrel between them.2. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution version and held that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor. While doing so he has overlooked many important factors in support of the prosecution case 3. Mr. Misra contends that on the finding that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor, the conviction cannot be sustained This necessitates examination of the...
Tag this Judgment!