Orissa Court January 1986 Judgments
Dama SwaIn Vs. Gangadhar Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT327; 1986(I)OLR268
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. This second appeal is filed by the defendant against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction.2. The respondent filed O. S. No. 335 of 1973-1 before the Munsif, Puri, against the appellant with the prayer to permanently restrain the latter from going upon the land, from interfering with the possession of the suit land, from reaping, removing, destroying or otherwise causing any waste to the crops standing on the suit land by any means whatsoever. The suit land was described in the schedule to the plaint as Ac O. 74 decimals under plot No. 1084, Khata No. 391, of Mouza Kamasasan in the district of Puri. The gist of the case made out in the plaint was that the suit land formed a part of the estate of the deity Banambar Deb installed at Markandeswar sahi. The Marfatdars of the deity had inducted the father of the plaintiff to hold and cultivate the suit land as a raiyat under them on condition of paying Sanj...
Tag this Judgment!Balaram SwaIn Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR350
K.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) for quashing the charges framed against the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and under Section 409 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C' for short).2. The relevant facts may be stated in a nutshell. Accused Sudhir Chandra Misra was the District Veterinary Officer, accused Ajodya Prasad Mishra was the Head Clerk and the petitioner Balaram Swain was the Accountant in the District Veterinary Office, Bolangir, in the year 1967. On 31.3.1967 accused Sudhir Chandra Misra in his official capacity drew a sum of Rs. 27,187.86 by presenting Bill No. 427 in the local Treasury. On 15.5.1967 the petitioner took an amount of Rs. 2360/- therefrom for payment of costs of transportation of furniture and presented a Kutcha unstamped receipt. The furniture were in fact transported...
Tag this Judgment!Kambhu Das and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR275
B.K. Behera, J. 1. Concurrent findings have been recorded by the trial and appellate Courts that on April 29, 1977, the petitioner Kambhu Das caused grievous hurt to Pabitramohan Sahu (P. W. 1) by means of an axe and that the other petitioner Gandharba Das voluntarily caused hurt to Sugriba Sahu (P. W. 10) also by means of an axe after a quarrel. The petitioner Kambhu Das has been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and the petitioner Gandharba Das has been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The facts of the prosecution case and the plea of the defence have been set out in the judgments of the Courts below and need not be restated.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that after the occurrence, no report had been made to the police authorities by the victims or the witnesses to the o...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Sukadev Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR444
B.K. Behera, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in respect of the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code while convicting the accused-respondent under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent, it was alleged, forcibly committed rape on the victim girl (P. W. 6), then aged about nine years, on September 5, 1980, while she was watching the paddy field, by going there, making her naked and then forcibly penetrating his penis inside her vagina and committing sexual intercourse against her will. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial Court held that the charge of rape had not been established but the respondent could be held guilty for outraging the modesty of P. W 6.2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. In an appeal against acquittal, it is to be seen as to whether the finding recorded by the trial Court is reasonably possible. Even if another view can be taken, no interference is called fo...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. YasIn Baig and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1389
ORDERB.K. Behera, J.1. The respondents stood charged under Section 148 of the Penal Code (for short, 'the Code') for having formed an unlawful assembly on Aprl. 24, 1981, being armed with sticks, which used as weapons of offences were likely to cause death, in prosecution of their common object to assault Ujir (P.W. 6) and Ors.. They also stood charged under Section 120B read with Section 149 of the Code for having agreed to do an illegal act and under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Code for having attempted to commit the murder of Kabir (P.W. 2) and Ujir (P.W. 6) and assaulted them. P.W. 2 had sustained grievous injuries while P.W. 6 had sustained simple injuries. The prosecution had examined thirteen witnesses to bring home the charges to the respondents. P.W. 1 was the first informant. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 had sustained injuries allegedly at the hands of the respondents. P.Ws. 8 to 10 had been examined as witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws. 3 to 5 were the doctors and P.Ws. 12 ...
Tag this Judgment!Balasore Talkies (Pvt.) Ltd. and Etc. Etc. Vs. Balasore Municipality a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ori230; 61(1986)CLT254; 1986(I)OLR318
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioners in these five writ petitions challenge the levy of octroi duty on cinematography films brought by them for exhibition in cinema halls. The petitioners are owners of cinema halls situatedin different towns in the State. They bring cinematography films from different distributors for exhibition in the cinema halls. The Municipal Council within the limits of which the cinema halls are located have imposed octroi duty on the films brought by the petitioners and owners of other cinema halls situated therein, at different rates. The Municipal Councils concerned in these writ petitions are those of Balasore and Berhampur. The imposition has been made in exercise of power under Section 131(1)(kk) of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), after getting the requisite sanction from the State Government in the Housing and Urban Development Department as required under the Act. Since the material facts-in all these writ petitions ...
Tag this Judgment!Panchanan Alias Panchu Sahu and Three ors. Vs. Sanatan Barik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR249
B.K. Behera, J.1.Concurrent findings recorded by the trial and the appellate Courts holding the petitioners to be guilty of the charge of theft for having cut away and removed branches of a pipal tree belonging to the complainant-opposite party standing on plot No. 1013/1256 at village Salijanga in the district of Cuttack on April 16, 1978 convicting them under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten days are under challenge in this revision on the grounds that the opposite party had not proved his actual possession over the land in question where the tree stood and had not explained the delay in making the complaint. The opposite party, in spite of service of notice on him personally, has not entered appearance in this Court.2. Normally the jurisdiction of this Court in revision is to be exercised to set aside an order in exceptional cases when th...
Tag this Judgment!Bharati Naik Vs. Jagabandhu Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR231
B.K. Behera, J.1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order of acquittal in a case instituted by the State. No appeal has been preferred by the ' State. My attention has been invited to some remarks made by the trial Court in its judgment and it has been submitted that the findings have been based on conjectures and same errors of record. The case depended on the sole testimony of P. W. 1. In order that her evidence was to be accepted, her evidence was to be completely above reproach. On a perusal of the findings recorded by the trial Court and on a consideration of her evidence, it cannot be said that the trial Court completely went wrong in recording the order of acquittal. Even assuming that another and a better view could be taken holding the opposite parties to be guilty of the charges, that cannot be a ground for interference in a revision against acquittal keeping in view the principles laid down by the Su...
Tag this Judgment!Gouranga Alias Goura Jena Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-17-1986
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT317; 1987CriLJ624
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J.1. This is a detenu's application for the second time in this Court for issue of a writ of habeas corpus challenging the order of detention, his first application having been rejected by this Court on 16-8-1985.2. The petitioner has been detained pursuant to an order Under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') passed by the District Magistrate, Puri, on 25-3-1985 and the grounds of detention were communicated to him on 28-3-1985. He had made a representation to the State Government on 9-4-1985 and the decision of the Government rejecting the same was passed on 30-4-1985. The detenu thereafter preferred a writ petition in O.J.C, No. 1174 of 1985 challenging the legality of his detention and this Court by judgment dt. 16-8-1985 dismissed the said application. The decision of this Court in the aforesaid case has been reported in (1985) 60 Cut LT 317, (Gouranga @Goura Jena v. State of Orissa). The present application was filed...
Tag this Judgment!Sukadev Bhanja Vs. Mangulu Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-16-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT187; 1986(I)OLR196
ORDERB.K. Behera, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the final order passed in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the parties claimed exclusive possession in respect of the land in dispute and led oral and documentary evidence. On a consideration of the evidence to find out as to who was in actual physical possession, the learned Executive Magistrate has taken a view in favour of the first party-opposite party. While reaching this conclusion, the learned Executive Magistrate has taken due note of a decision of the civil Court in favour of the opposite party who had taken delivery of possession of the disputed land through the Court: In a proceeding under Section 145, it is the duty of the Executive Magistrate to give effect to the decision of the civil Court and see, as far as possible, that the decree is maintained. It would otherwise put a premium upon the high-handed and unlawful activities of the other side.2. The questions raised befo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »