Orissa Court September 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.
Dayanidhi Rath Sharma Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1967
Reported in: 33(1967)CLT1065; (1968)IILLJ533Ori
R.K. Das, J.1. The petitioner was working as a grade II assistant is defunct Development Department now called as the Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Orissa. A department proceeding was started against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension on 24 July 1963 and was dismissed from service on 24 October 1952. Against the said order of dismissal he filed an application (Original Jurisdiction Case No. 84 of 1958) before this Court and by an order dated 38 November 1964, a Division Bench of this Court held that the order of dismissal was invalid, inasmuch as the punishment proposed to be passed against him and of which he was given notice as required by Article 311(2) of the Constitution was lesser in degree than the punishment actually imposed upon him and consequently there was contravention of the mandatory provisions of that article. The Court therefore declared that the order of dismissal dated 21 October 1952 was void and insperative and that...
Michu Bagh and anr. Vs. K. Sadangi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1967
Reported in: 33(1967)CLT1172; 1968CriLJ1246
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. Two private complaints (Nos. Clause 3 and 4 of 1966) were filed under Sections 830 and 331, Indian Penal Code, against the A.S.I. and two constables of Larimore outpost under the police station, Deogarh on 28.1.66 and 2.2.66, respectively in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Deogarh, District Sambalpur. The said Magistrate examined both the complainant as required under Section 200, Criminal P.C. and posted both the cases to 28.2.66 for an enquiry to be made by him under Section 202, Criminal P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code').2. In the meanwhile a petition was filed by the Court Sub-Inspector saying that the enquiry under Section 202, Criminal P.C. relating to such misconduct against a police officer has, under the scheme of the separation of Judiciary from the Executive, to be conducted by an executive Magistrate. He referred to the Executive in striation issued at the time of separation of the Judiciary from the Executive for the guidance of t...
Prakash Chandra Mohanti Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-1967
Reported in: 34(1968)CLT99; (1968)IILLJ320Ori
G.R. Misra, J.The petitioner was convicted under Section 23 of the Police Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Pari. The Sessions Judge set aside the sentence of fine and directed forfeiture of pay of the petitioner for fifteen days.2. Prosecution case may be stated in brief. The Superintendent of Police, Pori, passed an older (Ex. 3) directing transfer of the petitioner, who was a constable attached to the Reserve Lines, to Baragarh outpost, under the Capital Police Station within the same district. The transfer order was communicated to the petitioner through the command certificate (Ex. 4) on 28 November 1964 at 8-30 a.m. He was directed to hand over charge and to report himself to duty at the Dew station on 30 November 1964. The petitioner refused to accept the command certificate and to sign it. He was produced before the Additional Superintendent of Police who explained to him the or...
State Vs. Siba Singh
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-04-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ori71; 1968CriLJ532
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Before the committing Magistrate, the Court Sub-Inspector filed a memo declining to examine any one of the two witnesses to the actual commission of the crime. The committing Court perused the police papers, heard arguments and committed the case to the court of sessions without examining any of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon (1958) 24 Cut. LT 146 : (AIR 1058 Orissa 241) State v. Anadi Betankar held that the committing Magistrate had no option but to examine the eye-witnesses and without such examination, the commitment was without jurisdiction.2. The law laid down in the aforesaid decision is not strictly accurate in view of the decision of the Supremt Court in AIR 1961 SC 674 Shri Ram v. State of Maharashtra; AIR 1965 S.C 712 Kirpal Singh v. State of U. P. Section 207-A, Sub-section (4) Cr.P.C lays down that the Magistrate shall then proceed to take evidence of such persons, if any, as may be produced by the prosecut...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›