Orissa Court March 1985 Judgments
Sadei SwaIn Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT134; 1985(II)OLR29
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The order dated 20. 2. 1981 of the Additional Sessions' Judge, Cuttack, confirming the order dated 21.8.1978 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baramba, convicting the petitioner under Section 394, Indian Penal Code, for committing robbery, is under challenge in this petition under Sections 397 and 401, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The gist of the prosecution case was that on 3.9.1975 at about 2 A. M, when the informant (P. W. 2) and the other inmates of his house P. Ws. 3 and 4 were sleeping in the house, the culprits armed with weapons forcibly entered inside the house, threatened and assaulted the inmates, snatched away gold ornaments and cash from them. The F. I. R. was lodged by P. W. 2 on the next day, 4. 9. 1975.In course of investigation, the police recovered some ornaments, a silver Gotha, two pieces of golden Kanapendi, one gold Chitu, a sum of Rs. 150/-, a Gupti and a Farsa from the house of the petitioner on 6.9.1975 under the seizure list, Ext. 3/1...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Lal Vs. Ashok Kumar Bisi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR44
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This application under Section 397 read with Section 401, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by K. M. Lal, an officer of the Indian Police Service is directed against the order of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Sambalpur, dated 22.9.1980 taking cognizance against him of an offence under Section 323, I. P. C. after an enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. on a complaint filed by the opposite party.The incident giving rise to the proceeding is alleged to have taken place on 25. 11. 1978. On that date the petitioner was the Superintendent of Police, Sambalpur. On 27.11. 1978 a complaint was filed before the S. D. J. M., Sambalpur by the opposite party, Ashok Kumar Bisi, alleging inter alia that the complainant who was an accused in G.R. Case No. 2054/78 was remanded by the Court to jail custody on 25. 11. 1978. After the aforesaid remand the complainant was taken from Court to the residence of the petitioner at about 7 P. M. There the petitioner was alleged to have ...
Tag this Judgment!Duinath Barik Alias Bibhar Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR329
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years for each of the offences respectively.2. The appellant was a rickshaw puller and a resident of Beherapali in the outskirt of Bolangir town. He married deceased Bhalu who had a daughter, Sari (P. W. 7) aged about ten years and a son aged about five years through her first husband. The couple along with the children lived in a portion of the house of Gupta (P. W. 6). It was alleged that the appellant and the deceased had frequent quarrels for two days prior to the date of occurrence, i.e., 8. 10. 1979 which was a Monday. In the morning of the date of occurrence the appellant picked up quarrel with the deceased. When P. W. 7, Sari intervened, the appellant threw a Khuri ( a large and heavy bell-metal utensil used for taking rice with gruel) which hit her. Thereafter the appellant became furious, p...
Tag this Judgment!Panchu Nahak Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1633
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur for having committed the murder of his wife, Kumari.2. The prosecution case is that Kumari (referred to as 'deceased'), a divorcee was married to the appellant, a widower about eight years prior to the occurrence which took place early in the morning of 8-1-1980. They had a son, namely, Hina who at the time of occurrence was aged about five years. They were living in a house of their own adjoining the house of the appellant's separated brother, husband of PW. 3, Api Nahakani. About three or four days prior to the occurrence the appellant had taken away some gold ornament from the person of the deceased for which there seems to have been some misunderstanding between the couple and for which the parents of the deceased had to intervene. In the night of 7-1-1980, the appellant, the deceased and their minor son ...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh K. Chakrabarty Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-25-1985
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR429
B.K. Behera, J.1. The appellant stood charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Code), in the Court of Mr. C.P. Panda, Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, with having committed the murder of Manik Das, along with the absconding co-accused Rabin Das by means of a sharp cutting weapon during the night of November 24, 1982, near the R.C. Mission Church at Rourkela. It was alleged by the prosecution that having come with Manik Das (to be referred to hereinafter as 'the deceased') from Calcutta when the latter came with Rs. 6,000/- in search of service at Rourkela and after staying in the Blue Star Hotel of which Ram Kripal Singh (P. W. 19) was the Manager, in the name of A. K. Sarkar, where also the deceased stayed in the name of G. Sengupta, the appellant with his companion Rabin Das and the deceased left in a tempo' with Gopal Naik (P. W. 9), Dillip Singh Burma (P. W. 10) and Ajay Singh Burma (P. W. 14) during the fateful night and on the way, the 'tempo' was s...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Arda Mahalaxmi and anr. Vs. District Magistrate and Collector, Ga ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-21-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori20
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a second round of the petitioners to approach this Court in an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Petitioners, who are mother and son, are landholders. Under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') challenging the order in the ceiling surplus proceeding the petitioners approached this Court. During the pendency of the writ application, status quo was directed to be maintained. Ultimately the order was quashed and the Revenue Officer was directed to proceed afresh from the stage of draft publication under Section 43 of the Act -- See ILR (1979) 1 Cuttack 22 : (AIR 1979 Orissa 58), (Arda Murari v. State of Orissa). After remand, the Revenue Officer found that there was no surplus land beyond the ceiling area and accordingly, the proceeding was dropped. However, before the order of this Court directing to maintain the status quo, the Revenue Officer wrongly found surplus land measuring 7.799 ...
Tag this Judgment!Pitambar Padhi and anr. Vs. Smt. Santilata Padhi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-21-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Ori45; 60(1985)CLT22
ORDERB.N. Misra, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioner No. 2 and husband of opposite party No. 1. Opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor son and daughter respectively of petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 4 is the father of opposite party No. 1.2. The petitioners have filed the present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for transfer of O.S.No. 93 of 1982 pending in the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska to the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack. O.S.No. 93 of 1982 was filed by opposite party No. 1 against the petitioners on 24-11-82 in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska praying for judicial separation and maintenance. The judicial separation is sought for on the grounds of cruelty, neglect, assault, etc. The petitioners have already appeared and filed their written statement. Issues have already been framed and the suit is ready for hearing. After the filing of O....
Tag this Judgment!Sudam Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-21-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ori268; 1985(I)OLR582
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. These two writ applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arise out of a proceeding under Chapter IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for determination of the ceiling surplus land. Three days after the hearing of O. J. C. No. 1821 of 1979 was concluded and the judgment was reserved, O. J. C. No. 1822 of 1979 came up for hearing. Since both the writ applications arise out of the common revisional order involving the same question of fact and law, they are disposed of by this judgment. 2. Srikar Pradhan, the father of both the petitioners submitted his return under Section 40-A of the Act. He has four sons, namely, Bijoy (Minor), Trinath, Banshidhar and Sudam. Out of them, three sons, viz. Trinath, Banshidhar and Sudam also submitted similar returns independently. Claim of Srikar and three sons is that as early as 1963, they are separated by partition of their lands by metes and bounds and all the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sisir Kumar Panda and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-21-1985
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR535
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Since common question of law is involved in those two revision, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. On receipt of prosecution reports under Section 14 read with Section 14(2) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (here in after referred to as the Act) and under Section 76 (b) and (d) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. (here in to as the Scheme) for non submission of statutory returns, cognisance was taken by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar and the prayer in both these revision petition is to quash said cognisance. Criminal Revision No 78 of 1982 is directed against the cognisance taken in 2 (C) CC Case No. 229 of 1978 on the allegation that for period Sept., 1965 to Nov. 1965 the accused persons did not submit returns as required under the Act and the Scheme. Similarly Criminal Revision No. 79 of 1982 is directed against the order of the Magistrate tak...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-20-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT83; 1985(I)OLR448
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The petitioner bas prayed for quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to asthe 'Code') by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Dharamgarh.2. The Officer-in-charge, Junagarh Police Station, submitted a report under Non-F. I. R. No. 36 of 1982 against the petitioner alleging that he was a 'Goonda' and rowdy element and his movement in public at large was dangerous to the community and he being desperate and hazardous element of the, community, should be bound down under Section 110 of the Code. On perusal of the said report, the learned Magistrate was also satisfied as to the existence of the pre-conditions for initiating & proceeding under Sec 110 of the Code and, therefore, directed the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be bound down for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to maintain good behaviour for a period of one year. In this revision, the petitioner challenges the said order of the learned Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »