Orissa Court November 1977 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.
Satyanarayan Agarwalla Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-30-1977
Reported in: 45(1978)CLT194; 1978CriLJ1315
ORDERR.N. Misra, J.1. This revision application is directed against the confirming appellate order of learned Sessions Judge of Cuttack upholding confiscation directed by the Collector and District Magistrate of Cuttack in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955.2. Petitioner carries on business in oil seeds on wholesale basis in Malgodown area of Cuttack. On the allegation that there had been contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Essential Food Stuffs (Prevention of Hoarding and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1974, as also Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973, certain quantities of ground- put seed and ground-nut oil had been seized from the petitioner's premises. A notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why an order of confiscation may not be made. In the notice in Miscellaneous Case No. 16 of 1975, particulars were not provided except that in the schedule, ...
Gava Dei and anr. Vs. Gangadhar Mallik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-29-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori107
S. Acharya, J. 1. Defendants 1 and 9 have preferred this appeal against the decision of the court below confirming the decision of the trial court.2. The relationship of the parties will be seen from the genealogical table given below:-- NARI MALIK (died in 1945) ____________________|__________ | | 1st wife 2nd wife Gurubari (died in 1967) ______|______ | | | | Juja (D.1) Laxman | = Gave del = Rupa | (D.9) (D.3) | | Purusottam | (D.2) | ____________________________|________________________________ | | | | | | Budhi Madhu Gangadhar Khetra Dhukhi Jhuma (D.4) (D.5) (Plff.) (D.6) (D.8) (D.7)In the written statement filed by defendants 1, 2 and 9 it was claimed that Purusottam shown in the genealogical tree had been adopted as the son of Laxman.3. The plaintiff's suit is for declaration that Purusottam had not been adopted by Laxman; the partition deed dated 16-8-1965 (Ext. E) is void; and for partition of his 7/36th share out of the suit properties described in lots 1 to 10 of the plaint s...
Ranjit Kumar Samantray and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-29-1977
Reported in: 44(1977)CLT659; 1978CriLJ687
ORDERR.N. Misra, J.1. The seven petitioners are members of the second party in a proceeding Under Section 107 of the CrIPC before the City Magistrate of Cuttack and Imve been called upon to show cause why there should not be an order requiring each of them to execute a bond for rupees one thousand for keeping peace for a period of one year. This application Under Sections 401 and 482 of the CrIPC has been made for quashing the said proceeding on the ground that there is absolutely no material for the satisfaction of the City Magistrate that the petitioners be proceeded against Under Section 107 of the Code.2. The learned Additional Government Advocate raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order is of interlocutory character and in view of the bar under Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code, the revision application is not maintainable Under Section 401. Mr. Patnaik for the petitioners has taken the stand that the application is essentially one Under Section 482 of the C...
Hariram Agarwala Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-24-1977
Reported in: 45(1978)CLT51; 1978CriLJ686
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted Under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of Clause S of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Order') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 30 days. The seized paddy has been ordered to be confiscated to the State.2. Prosecution case was that the petitioner is the owner of Truck No. O.R.U. 24711 and on S-7-71 at 11 a.m, he was found carrying 161 bags of paddy weighing 75.75 quintals In the. truck. P.W. 1, the Inspector of Supplies, Attabira checked the truck at Godbhanga Check-gate and seized the paddy under the seizura list Ext. 1. It was alleged that the petitioner had purchased the paddy on one calendar day without licence in contravention of Clause 3 of the Order,3. The petitioner took the plea that ha was carrying the, paddy belonging to nine different persons under the purchase vouchers and way bills, Exts. A and B series. One; defence witness was examine...
Chaitan Bhuyan and anr. Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-23-1977
Reported in: 45(1978)CLT71; 1978CriLJ1303
ORDERK.B. Panda, J.1. Both the petitioners were Initially convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 (three) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- with defaulting sentence. Further, petitioner Chaitan had been convicted under Section 325, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 3 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. On appeal the convictions have been maintained but the sentences modified occasioning this revision.2. In brief, the prosecution case is thus:On 7-12-73 at about 10 a.m. the informant (P.W. 1) was collecting kachada in his land. His brother Bhagaban Rout (P. W. 3) and informant (P. W. 1) and Syamsundar (P. W. 4) and Balaram (P. W. 2) were carrying kachada to their house. At that time these two petitioners appeared at the spot and assaulted the complainant's party on account of the previous grudge. Petitioner Balakrushna Bhuyan dealt two lathi blows on the informant who fell down and raised a hue and cry that he was dying. At this, his nephew Balar...
Ranananda Choudhury and anr. Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-23-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ597
ORDERK.B. Panda, J.1. The two petitioners stood surety for accused Prahallad Choudhury in Sessions Trial No. 3/3A of 1975 and had executed bonds for production of the accused for Rs. 200/-. The Sessions Case was being tried by the Sessions Judge on Circuit at Angul. The accused did not appear for some days of trial on some grounds and the sureties also failed to produce him. Consequently the Sessions judge forfeited the bail bonds and issued notices to the petitioners as to why the penalty thereunder should not be realised from them. In fact, after forfeiture of the bonds a Misc. Case No, 18 of 77 was started wherein notices were given to the bailor petitioners. Disposing of the Misc. Case, the Sessions Judge observed thus:The explanation of the sureties that the accused was ill or was incapable in attending the Court cannot now be reagitated after the said adjournment petition was rejected on 28-2-77 and the case having been posted to 2-3-1977, when it was Incumbent on the opposite pa...
Alekh Pradhan and ors. Vs. Bhramar Pal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-22-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori58; 45(1978)CLT75
ORDERS. Acharya, J.1. The impugned order enables the plaintiffs, opposite parties in this case, to examine a pleader-surveyor as plaintiffs' witness whose survey report has already been filed in the court below. On 2-9-77 when the suit was part-heard and adjourned to 6-9-77 for examining witnesses, the plaintiffs filed 5 petition praying lor deputing a survey-knowing Commissioner to measure the disputed area. A copy of that petition had been served on the defendants, the petitioner in this case. That petition could not be disposed of on that day and was taken up for consideration on 6-9-77. On 6-9-77 the court, examined further witnesses for the plaintiffs, but rejected the said petition. While rejecting that petition it mentioned in the order sheet that the plaintiffs were at liberty to take cut a private Commissioner for the above purpose and may submit bis report In court within two days. The plaintiffs thereafter took a pleader-surveyor for the measurement of the disputed area, and...
Prem Ratan Mall Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-17-1977
Reported in: 45(1978)CLT121; 1978CriLJ599
ORDERK.B. Panda, J.1. This is a revision filed against an order of the Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Boudh, passed in am appeal under S>. 6C of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinaffcei referred to as the 'Act') con&mimg; the1 ardee of the Collector of Ganjam confiscating the kerosene oil seized from the petitioner 'brat setting aside the imposition of fine of Rupees 100/- in the following backers Mind The petitioner is a wholesaler of kerosene. His brosi-ness premises situate a Asks Road when Berhampur 1town was raided by Claatraput Civil Supplies staff on 5-7-1&74 at 7 p.. rat The raid revealed that the petitioner was in possession of 19,000 litres of kerosene where as in the Stock Register it was shown to be 18.344 litres. Thus, there was an excess of about 2000 litres of kerosene oil, Accordingly a report was made and the Collector Ganjam took action Under Section 6A of the Act and finally confiscated the kerosene and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/- in as much as the petitioner appeared bef...
Prem Bahadur Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-17-1977
Reported in: 44(1977)CLT629; 1978CriLJ683
ORDERR.N. Misra, J.1. Petitioner was a driver of a public carrier vehicle bearing registration number ORN 3905. Messrs Mamchand Munilal at Jharsuguda was working as a Storage Agent of the Food Corporation of India. One hundred bags of rice were to be moved from the said firm at Jharsuguda to Messrs Biswanath Rice Mills at Belpahar and the services of this truck were utilised. The truck left the godowns at Jharsuguda by about 4.30 P.M. on 13-10-1973. P.W. 7, the Vigilance Inspector checked this vehicle at Shankara Check-Gate which is about 2 kilometres before Sundargarh on the Jharsuguda side, around 6 P.M. and seized the stock and submitted a first information report at the Vigilance Police Station of Sambal-pur. Petitioner, one Nowrangalal Agarwal of Messrs Biswanath Rice Mills and a Supply Inspector were charge-sheeted. The Supply Inspector was discharged by the Magistrate and the other two were put on trial. Nowranglal was acquitted by the trial court. It is unnecessary to refer to ...
Khirod Chandra Mohanty Vs. Banshidhar Khatua and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-15-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori111; 45(1978)CLT174
S. Acharya, J. 1. Defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 264/14 of 1967/72 has preferred this appeal against the decision of the Court below in title Appeal No. 36/73 confirming that of the trial court.2. The plaintiff's case, in short, is that in the family partition between Gouranga and his two brothers, the suit lands described in schedules A and B of the plaint fell to the share of Gouranga. Gouranga died the 25-9-66 leaving behind him his widow Dalimba, who was defendant No. 2 in the suit. Gouranga had alienated 29 decimals of land, described in Schedule A of the plaint, in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 by two registered sale deeds dated 11-8-62 and 22-7-63, He also bad sold the rest Act 4.11 decimals of land as per the registered sale deed dated 31-7-63 in favour of Latika, defendant No. 3, the wife of defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 3 thereafter alienated Ac. 3,50 decimals 6 Biswas of land, described in Schedule B of the plaint, in favour of plaintiffs 3 to 10 by different registered s...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »