Orissa Court September 1985 Judgments
Brundaban Sahu Vs. B. Rajendra Subudhi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-30-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori210
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phulbani in I.C.C. No. 48 of 84 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The opposite party filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner is trading in 'Khara Masala' using similar wrapper as that of the complainant and thereby has committed the offence for which cognizance has been taken. On receipt of the said complaint and on examining the complainant, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act has been established and, therefore, took cognizance summoning the accused to appear before him by 17th July, 1984.2. Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the av...
Tag this Judgment!Surendranath SwaIn Vs. Nanda Kishore Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-30-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR535
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, is an accused in a complaint case bearing I. CC. Case No. 9 of 1963, pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Athmallik. The opposite party lodged a complaint against the petitioner and another constable making allegations that they committed offences under Sections 161, 342, 384, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code. The complainant was examined under Section 100, Code of Criminal Procedure, and thereafter the learned Magistrate directed to hold an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code. Several witnesses were examined in course of the said enquiry and the learned Magistrate on being satisfied that prima facie a case has been established under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, took cognizance of the same and issued summons to the accused persons fixing 27.2 1984 for their appearance. This order of the learned Magistrate dated 18. 1. 1984 is being impugned in the present miscellaneous case and the inher...
Tag this Judgment!Brundaban Mohapatra and ors. Vs. Kulamani Mishra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-30-1985
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT37; 1985(II)OLR564
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Petitioners in this revision have prayed for quashing the order of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar taking congnizance of the offence under Section 500 I. P. C. in I. C. C. No. 19/85. The opposite party filed a complaint alleging therein that he and his wife were members of first party in a proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P. C. numbered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 186/84 in the Court of the Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar. In the said 107 Cr. P C. proceeding the opposite party was examined as a witness and the present petitioners were the members of the second party. The counsel for the second party in the said 107 Cr. P. C. proceeding cross-examined the complainant and eligited some answers which have absolutely no bearing with the 107 Cr. P. C. proceeding but were intended only to defame the complainant opposite party and to injure the reputation of the complainant and his wife in the public estimation. The complainant further averred ...
Tag this Judgment!Gunanidhi Meher and anr. Vs. Usha Meher
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-30-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR545
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This is an application by the accused persons in a complaint case bearing ICC Case No. 70 of 1981 invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for quashing the cognisance taken against them. The only ground on which the inherent jurisdiction is being invoked is that the principle of autre fois acquit on trained in Section 300 of the Code would apply with full force in view of the earlier order of acquittal in G. R. Case No. 1346 of 1981 wherein on the self-same allegations the petitioners were tried under Section 160, Indian Penal Code, and were acquitted by the learned Magistrate,2. An application was filed on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Magistrate in the complaint case alleging that the provisions of Section 300 of the Code would apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case, but the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the offences for...
Tag this Judgment!Charan Misra and anr. Vs. Labanya Debi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-28-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Ori20; 60(1985)CLT503
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Defendants are the appellants against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.2. According to the plaintiffs case, her father Jadumani Misra was the owner of the suit property and was possessing the same till his death in the year 1963. After his death, the plaintiff as his heir became the owner of the property and possessed the suit land. In the year 1975, the defendants prevented the plaintiff from going upon the land alleging that they have purchased the same in the year 1962. The plaintiff on enquiry came to learn that the defendants have managed to get a fraudulent sale deed from her father on 14-9-1962 by exercise of fraud and undue influence without payment of any consideration and without the document being read over and explained to late Jadumani Misra and, therefore the sale deed is void and no title has passed on to defendant 1 on the basis of the said sale deed. The defendants were never in possession of the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh Jaggi Vs. Dataram Jagannath
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-28-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori110; 60(1985)CLT466
1. The respondentinstituted M.S. No. 129 of 1961 in the Court ofthe Subordinate Judge, Cuttack against thethe appellant claiming for a decree forRs. 10,723.63. The basis of the claim was thatthe respondent had advanced loans to theappellant on different dates and the aforesaidamount still remained unpaid. The appellantdenied the claim 'altogether, but on the otherhand, preferred a counter claim praying for adecree on mutual accounts in his favour.Whereas, the respondent paid an ad valoremcourt-fee on the amount claimed against theappellant, the latter valued the counter-claimtentatively at Rs. 100A and paid court-feethereon.2. By judgment dt. 9-3-1964 a preliminary decree was passed on the following terms : --' That the suit is decreed on contest with costs against the defendant and pleader's fee at 6 1/4 per cent. P.I. and F.I. at 6 per cent P.A. At the same time the cross claim of the defendant for accounts to be rendered by the plaintiffs to account for the defendant's goods lying w...
Tag this Judgment!Brundaban Majhi Vs. Jagateswar Mirdha
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-27-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori106
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Kuchinda AssemblyConstituency is a single-member reservedConstituency for the Orissa State Legislative'Assembly (in short 'the Assembly'). Duringthe general elections to the Assembly held inthe month of Mar. 1985, the petitioner filedfour nomination papers for being elected fromthis Constituency. The respondent and twoothers also filed their respective nominationpapers. At the time of scrutiny on 9-3-1985,the Returning Officer rejected the nominationpapers of the petitioner on the ground that thepetitioner was not qualified under Article 173(a)of the Constitution to be chosen to fill up aseat in the State Legislature since he did nottake oath after filing of the nomination papers.The nomination papers of the two othercandidates having been rejected on scrutiny,the respondent was declared electeduncontested. Petitioner has filed this petitionto declare the election of the respondent void under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation ofthe People Act, 1951 (in s...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Malik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-27-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR511
B.K. Behera, J.1. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I would uphold the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal against the order of conviction and sentences passed against him has not legally and properly been heard and disposed of by the Court of Session. It would be seen from the record of the appellate Court that on 8. 7. 1981, a data to which the appeal stood posted for hearing, no steps were taken by the appellant and none appeared for him. The Assistant Public Prosecutor was heard and the record was perused by the appellate Court. Judgment was delivered some days thereafter. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in 1982 SCC (Cri) 143 Khaili and Ors. v. State of U. P. and by this Court in 1984 Cri. L. J. 581 :1984 (I) OLR 1031: 1984 C. L. R. (Cri.) 296 : Surendra Mohapatra v. State and 1985 Cri. L. J. 228 : 1984 (2) Crimes 898 : 1934 (I) OLR 1033: 53(1984) CLT 585 : S. Mohan Rao v. Bhubaneswar Rath, when...
Tag this Judgment!Harekrishna Sahu Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-27-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT485; 1985(II)OLR603
B.K. Behera, J.1. If I hold, as I must, that the complainant cannot be the Judge of his own case, the order of conviction, recorded against the petitioner under Section. 193 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs. Rs. 100/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month, affirmed by the appellate Court, must be set at naught. I do not feel myself called upon to go into the merits of the case as the entire proceedings against the petitioner had been vitiated by an illegal order taking conisance passed by the same Magistrate who had made the complaint. The ground urged on behalf of the petitioner in this regard is unassailable and has fairly been acceded to by the learned Standing Counsel.2. For making two irreconcilable statements in two judicial proceedings, admitting one thing in the former case and denying it in the other, before the Judicial Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Santuka Vs. Champalal Sethia and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-27-1985
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR48
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Complainant, a monthly tenant in respect of a house in Cuttack town under the accused persons, is the appellant against an order of acquittal under Section 256, Criminal Procedure Code.2. On the basis of the complaint dated 10-4-1981, cognisance was taken for offences under Sections. 323 and 504, I. P. C., and the accused persons were summoned to face the trial, They entered appearance on 22 5.1981 and were released on bail. The case was posted to 30-6-1981 for hearing. On 30-6-1981, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the following order :'Accused is represented through their R/L. Complainant filed hazira. Call on 28-7-1981 for hearing. Case is transferred to the file of Shri P. C. Misra, M. F. C. for disposal A/L. Accused as before.'The case record was received on transfer in the Court of Shri P. C. Misra on 1-7-1981 and was directed to be put up on the date fixed.3. On 28-7-1981 when the case was taken up, the complainant being absent the following orde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »