Orissa Court April 1984 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.
Jagabandhu Jena and ors. Vs. Land Allotment Committee and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-30-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Ori143
Mohapatra, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners seek to challenge the allotment of Government lands in the civil township of Rourkela to be in contravention of the rules framed by the State Government for the purpose.A set of administrative instructions styled as 'Rules for Allotment of Government Lands in the Rourkela Civil Township' (hereinafter called 'the Rules') have been issued by the State Government for the purpose of making allotment of government lands in the Civil Township of Rourkela. Under the said rules a land allotment committee (hereinafter called 'the Committee') comprising of the Commissioner, the Collector of Sundargarh, the Town Planner, the Director of Industries and the Additional District Magistrate of Sundargarh has been constituted. The Committee is vested with the power to receive applications from the public for allotment of lands, consider the same and select the applicants considered most deserving.According to the procedure laid down in the rules the...
Pravakar Behera Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-30-1984
Reported in: 58(1984)CLT42; 1984(I)OLR424
B.K. Behera, J.1. For proof of a fact, law does not require plurality, but quality of evidence. Evidence is to be weighed and not counted. An order of conviction can be rested on the testimony of a solitary witness if the evidence is clear and cogent and is of an unimpeachable character. Upon hearing Mr. Prasant Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. P. Sahoo, the learned Standing Counsel, I find that the evidence of the sole witness to the occurrence (P. W. 5) whose house had been set fire to in the evening of the 15th September, 1979 by the petitioner, as alleged, did not deserve credence and Mr. S. K. Panda, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge who tried the petitioner and convicted him under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and Mr. P. Jena, the learned Sessions Judge, who heard and dismissed the appeal, had recorded unreasonable findings holding the petitioner guilty of the charge of...
Laxmi Sahuani Vs. Maheswar Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori11
P.C. Misra, J. 1. The sole plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The defendant is the husband of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's suit is for a decree against the defendant (a) for maintenance of Rs. 60/- P.M., (b) for Rs. 1220/- towards arrear of maintenance and (c) for Rs. 500/-for separate residence. 2. The plaintiff's case in brief is as follows :-- The plaintiff is the legally married wife of the defendant and after their marriage, they lived as husband and wife for some time. The defendant thereafter ill-treated her and she left his house and is residing separately for which she brought the suit registered as T. S. No. 51/57 in the Court of the Sub Judge, Bolangir for restitution of conjugal rights, the said suit was decreed. The plaintiff alleges that in spite of the decree, the defendant did not take her to his house in accordance with the custom governing the parties and the defendant, instead, married a second wife namely Kunjabati daughter of one Jogeswar Pradhan of Ra...
Narayan Behera Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-19-1984
Reported in: 1984(I)OLR438
B.K. Behera, J.1. The petitioner assails the order of conviction recorded against him by the trial court under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code with a sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years maintained by the Court of Session for having committed robbery during the night of the 9th/l0th April, 1978, by entering into the dwelling house of Sushila Bewa (P.W. 2) and removing a gold necklace from her neck and two gold ear-rings by forcibly removing them from her ears resulting in injuries on her parson.2. The order of conviction has been based mainly on the evidence of the sole witness to the occurrence (P. W. 2) who, it was stated, had implicated the petitioner as the author of the crime when the co-villagers (P. Ws. 3 to 6) came to the scene on hearing the cry raised by her.3. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and on a perusal of the evidence, while I would accept the concur tent finding recorded by the courts below that P. W. 2 had bee...
Baidhar Patra Alias Makara and Madan Alias Subash Pradhan Vs. State of ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-1984
Reported in: 1984(I)OLR442
B.K. Behera, J.1. The appellants Baidhar Patra alias Makara and Madan Khatua, besides four other co-accused persons, namely, Suresh Chandra Das, Sarbeswar Panda, Mohan alias Subash Pradhan and Jaladhar Das alias Jena, stood charged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed dacoity in the 203 Up running train in between Soro and Sabira Railway Stations at about 10. 30 P.M. on November 17,1981, in the course of which they were alleged to have used deadly weapons, kept the passengers including P. Ws. 1 to 5, 14 and 19 under awe and removed a number of articles from the possession of Jagadish Biswakarma (P. W. 19) who had been moving with his family members and also from other: persons and decamped when the train was about to stop at the Sabira Railway Station. With some money borrowed from Sk. Abdul Khalil (P. W. 18.), P. W. 19, one of the victims, returned to Kharagpur with his family members. Investigation was taken up by the Officer-in-Charge of the Government Rai...
Radhamohan Thakur Vs. Pruna Chandra Kanungo and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori280; 58(1984)CLT28
P.C. Misra, J. 1. The appellant is the petitioner in a proceeding under Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') praying for a declaration that the deity Radhamohan Thakur is the family deity of the petitioner and ultimately if the deity is found to be a public one for declaration that the petitioner along with opposite parties Nos. 1 to 9 are the hereditary trustees of the deity with exclusive right of the management of the deity of the property. The case of the petitioner in his application under Section 41 of the Act is as follows : -- The deity Radha Mohan Thakur Bije Kortala P.S. Jagatsinghpur district Cuttack was installed by one Rasik Charan Choudhury, the ancestor of the petitioner and opposite parties Nos. 1 to 9 during the Moghal Rule in Orissa in the 17th Century. It is stated that the deity was brought from Mathura by one Rasik Charan Choudhury, the forefathers of Kanoongo family (i.e. the petitioner and O.Ps. 1 to 9). It i...
Dinesh Kumar Jajodia and anr. Vs. State Co-operative Marketing Federat ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-16-1984
Reported in: 57(1984)CLT488; 1984(I)OLR432
B.K. Behera, J.1. The petitioners invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure (the 'Code', for short) to quash the charge framed against them under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh, after examination of three witnesses for the complainant-opposite party and the revisional order passed by the learned Additional. Sessions Judge upholding the order framing charge against the petitioners, while annulling the charge against the co-accused Mahabir Prasad Jajodia, the proprietor of Shree Hanuman Rice Mill at Sasan in the district of Sambalpur. The petitioner Dinesh Kumar is the son of Mahabir Prasad while the other petitioner Lalit Kumar is his brother.2. Shree Hanurnan Rice Mill entered into an agreement with the opposite party for the purchase of oil out of bran manufactured by the latter in its granular fertiliser plant at Bargarh. According to the term...
Panalal Shaw and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-16-1984
Reported in: 58(1984)CLT17; 1984(I)OLR472
B.K. Behera, J.1.Concurrent findings recorded by the trial and the appellate Courts holding the petitioners to be guilty and convicting them for the offences of house-breaking under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code) and dacoity under Section 395 of the Code are under challenge in this batch of Criminal Revisions. Each of the petitioners has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months under Section 457 of the Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months under Section 395 of the Code. During the pendency of these Criminal Revisions, Birendra Kumar Patnaik, petitioner No. 1 in Criminal Revision No. 120 of 1983, died and no legal representatives of ...
Gunanidhi Sundara Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-09-1984
Reported in: 57(1984)CLT505; 1984(I)OLR495
B.K. Behera, J.1. The petitioner assails the judgment and order passed by Mr. B.N. Patnaik. Assistant Sessions Judge, Puri, convicting him under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and the order of dismissal of his appeal recorded by Mr. N. Purohit,. Sessions Judge, Puri.2. I have considered the convicted prisoner's application in revision from the jail and the evidence on record and have heard the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State who tried at the initial stage of the hearing of this revision to support the order of conviction and' then left the matter to the judicial determination of this Court in view of the serious infirmities and inconsistencies in the evidence of the victim (P. W. 6) whose statements in this evidence had brought about has condemnation. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter I am of the view Chat to maintain the order of conviction would mean travesty of...
Nishakar Panigrahi Vs. Kulamani Dixit and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-09-1984
Reported in: 57(1984)CLT544; 1984(I)OLR543
B.K. Behera, J.1. This revision has been directed against the impugned order discharging the opposite parties 1 to 5 who had figured as the accused persons in the case. The case was one under Sections 147, 148 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge-sheet had been placed after investigation into the case registerged on the basis of the first information report lodged by the petitioner. Mr. Kar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has urged that there are materials against the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5 to frame charges and it was not permissible under the law to take into consideration the materials of the counter-case in finding out as to whether charges were to be framed. Mr. Jena, appearing for the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5, has supported the impugned order as well-founded. Mr. Rath, the learned Additional Standing Counsel, has left this matter for a decision by this Court in view of the legal ground raised on behalf of the petitioner.2. There have b...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »