Court : Orissa
Reported in : 37(1971)CLT667; 1972CriLJ193
B.K. Patra, J.1. The two appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge of Mayurbhanj-Keonihar under Sec- 302/34, Indian Penal Code and Section 201/34, Indian Penal Code. For their conviction Under Section 302/34. I. P. C., each of them is sentenced to death. No separate sentence is passed against them for their conviction under Section 201/34. I. P. C., The appellants have filed appeals against their conviction and the Sessions Judge has made a reference under Section 374, Criminal P. C. for confirmation of the sentence of death passed against the appellants. The appeals and the reference have been heard together.2. The prosecution case may be stated. The deceased Sahadeb Jena was working as a Forest Guard in the Barang beat. At about 7.30 a.m. on 16-6-1969, he along With Khetramohan Das (P. W. 3) Went towards the Barang reserve forest to see if there was any illicit felling of trees. On the way, they saw Kodanda Jena (P. W. 2) returning from the forest with a log of wood. On the dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 37(1971)CLT643; 1971CriLJ1797
ORDERA. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted Under Section 420 IPC sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pav a fine of Rs. 2.000/-: in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine, if realised. Rs. 1,000/- has been ordered to be paid to the complainant-opposite party as compensation for the loss sustained by him.2. The case of the opposite party is that on 6-1-66 the petitioner approached him in the company of P.W. 2 and one False Haque and wanted an amount of Rs. '3,000/- in cash to meet certain urgent needs. He delivered to the op-oositv party a cheque for Rs. 3,000/-drawn on the United Commercial Bank in favour of the opposite party representing he has- an account there and received the amount in cash. On 22-1-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1972Ori10
A. Misra, J. 1. Plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs representing the Mekap Nijog and Khuntia Niiog of Lord Jagannath for a declaration of their right to collect Bheta and Pindika offered to the deity in Thalis, Parakhas and Jharis near the Bhitar Khata. Bahar Khata and Ratna Singhasan of the temple and for a permanent injunction restraining the Administrator of the Jagannath temple or his agent from interfering with their rights of collection in the afore-prescribed receptacles. According to them, they are Sebaks of the deity and the collection of offering made by the pilgrims in Thalis, Parakhas and Jharis is a religious function performed by them which has been recognised in the record-of-rights prepared by the Special Officer under Sri Jagannath Temple Act of 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). It is alleged that the Administrator of the Jagannath temple issued an order on 23-11-1962 to the effect that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (1971)IILLJ199Ori
B.K. Patra, J.1. The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act having its head office at Rourkela N. Roy, a member of this Union, was working as Crane Operator of the Hindustan Steel Limited. On 1-11-1963, Roy was dismissed from service of the Hindustan Steel Limited. The petitioner then raised a dispute before the District Labour Officer, Rourkela and he took up conciliation proceedings. On 26th January, 1964, the District Labour Officer submitted a factual report on the failure of the conciliation proceedings (Annexure-I), but indicated in the report that both parties had agreed to refer the issue for arbitration. Government received this report on 29-6-1964 (Annexure-II). On 28-5-1965, a memo of settlement (Annexure-III) arrived at agreeing to refer the dispute to the arbitration of Shri R.C. Misra, retired District Judge, was executed and was sent to the District Labour Officer (Annexure-IV). The State Government did not however publish the agreement in the G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1972Ori12
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J. 1. Facts of the case may be stated in short. Plaintiffs are the petitioners, Padan Das and Laxman Das (opposite party No. 2) were two brothers. Opposite parties nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of Laxman Das, Padan Das was the admitted owner of the suit properties measuring 0.54 acre. Out of this. 0.17 acre is in Khata No. 455 and 0.37 acre in Khata No. 581. Suka is the daughter of Padan Das. On 15th of October 1930, Padan sold the disputed lands to one Sadei Sahu. On 25th of August 1954, Sadei, in his turn, sold the disputed lands to Laxman Das. On 21-5-1963 Suka sold the disputed lands to the plaintiffs. Laxman filed Title Suit No. 89 of 1963 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession against the plaintiffs. On 22nd of August 1963 that suit was compromised. In the compromise decree the title of the plaintiffs was declared and their possession was confirmed. On 27-12-1968 Laxman sold 0.37 acre to Krushna Sahu (opposite party no. 1). Out of 0.37 acre. 0.03 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1972Ori14
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J.1. One Kananbala died in 1956. She had three sons Brajagopal who died in 1965, Goshtagopal (defendant No. 9). and Nitvagopal who pre-dec-ased her in 1953. Sova (plaintiff No. 1 -- opposite partv No. 11 and Krishna (plaintiff No. 2 -- opposite party No. 2) are the daughters of Nityagopal. Defendants 1 to 4 and 8 are the sons and daughters of Braiagopal. some of the heirs of Braiagopal filed T. S. No. 63 of 1965 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Baripada, for partition claiming half share in the properties left by Kananbala. Plaintiffs were defendants 2 and 3 in that suit. Opposite party No. 1 was set ex parte and opposite party No. 2 who was a minor then was represented by a court guardian. On 21st of December, 1966 a preliminary decree for partition was passed whereby eight annas interest was decreed in favour of the heirs of Brajagopal. Plaintiffs filed M. J. C. No. 101 of 1967, an application in forma pauperis. on 27-11-1967 for a declaration that the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1972Ori32
A. Misra, J.1. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant against a reversing judgment.2. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed the suit for partition of the suit lands described in the plaint Schedule and allotment of 13/48th share to him. besides partition of the house standing on plot No. 1383 and allotment of half a share therein to him and Rs. 150/- as price of the joint paddy appropriated by defendant No. 1. His case, in brief, is that the common ancestor Bhagban had five sons Sadhu. Radhu, Natha. Josabanta and Markanda, These five branches completely separated from each other and possessed their properties separately after division in metes and bounds. In the said partition, Sadhu got Re. -/4/-. Radhu and Natha each sot Re. -/3/3 pies share and Josabanta and Markanda each got a Re. -/2/9 pies share. In the present litigation, the three branches Sadhu, Natha and Markanda are not concerned. Khetri (defendant No. 3) is the widow of Josabanta. His son Adikanda died. Defendant No. 1, the adopted so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1972Ori21
R.N. Misra, J. 1. The defendants 1 and 2 have come with this appeal against the reversing decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Barsarh. The plaintiffs sued for title in respect of 4.59 acres of land shown in the Ka schedule of the plaint. Their source of title was indicated to be a sift deed made by the defendant No. 10 subsequently transposed as the plaintiff No. 4 on 30-1-61 (Ext. 5). 2. One Maheswar Bisi had four sons Gour, Bhara Sama and Dama. The plaintiff No. 1 is the daughter of Dama while the plaintiff No. 2 is the grand-daughter of Sama and the plaintiff No. 3 is the daughter of Gour. As already stated the plaintiff No. 4 (original defendant No. 10) is the widow of Ratna who happens to be the son of Bharat. The plaintiffs contended that the property in dispute belonged to Bharat and had been inherited by Ratna. Ratna died more than 30 years prior to the litigation. His widow, the plaintiff No. 4, got herself mutated and was in possession. She made a gift under Ext. 5 i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 37(1971)CLT755
Ray, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff. It arises out of a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is not personally liable to pay the sales-tax dues of the partnership firm, consisting of three partners, of whom the plaintiff's father was one, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling the articles mentioned in the schedule of plaint; and for their return to the plaintiff.2. Plaintiff's case, in short, is this:The joint family comprising of the plaintiff, his brother, and his father disrupted on 31-12-51, and there was a partition by metes and bounds of all the joint-family-properties. A partition-deed was drawn up and registered on 4-2-52 in evidence of such partition. The plaintiff further received a cash of Rs. three thousand and left the house, and ultimately, became a Babaiee. His brother also cut off all connections with him and left the village, and shifted to Rambha where he settled down. There was a partnership firm at Purushottampur whos...
Tag this Judgment!