Orissa Court April 1986 Judgments
Janardan Panda and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR591
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioner No.1, Janardan Panda stood trial for commission of offence under Sections 304, 330, 109, 342, 201 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code and petitioner No 2 Daridaparti Mahakud stood trial for commission of offence under Sections 304, 390, 342 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code in an occurrence that occurred at Deogarh Police Station on 3-8-1979. Petitioner No. 1, Janardan Panda was convicted under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,OO0/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. Petitioner No. 2, Dandapani Mahakad was convicted under Sections 330 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months, for commission of offence under Section 330 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months commission of offence under Section 201 of the Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. Rupadhar Bhuyan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-29-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT193; 1986(I)OLR660
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Kendrapara, dropping a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) and directing continuance of the custodian of the disputed land till a receiver is appointed by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.2.On police report to the effect that there was apprehension of breach of peace relating to plot No. 7 appertaining to Khata No. 1 consisting of Ac. 1.00 of cultivable (and in mouza Tikayatnagar, the learned Executive Magistrate on 24-8-1985 initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code and directed the parties to file their written statement. Later, he received a further police report to the effect that there was dispute with regard to the standing paddy crop which was subject to natural decay. On receipt of this report and after hearing both parties, the learned Executive Magistrate by order dated 14-11-1985 directed attachment ...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Kumar Dhal Vs. Kalandi Charan Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-29-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT109; 1986(II)OLR61
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. These two revisions arise out of Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 97 of 1979 of the Court of Executive Magistrate, Dhenkanal. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, both the cases are heard analogously and his common judgment will govern both of them2. The proceeding Under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short), initiated by the learned Executive Magistrate, is in respect of extensive cultivable lands. The petitioner, who is the first party, claims to be the adopted son of deceased Bichhamali Dhal, widow of late Rusananda Dhal. Kalandi Charan Jena, a member of the second party, is the brother of deceased Bichhamali Dhal. His claim is that his son Copal Chandra Jena ali is Dhal is her adopted son. During the pendency of the proceeding, a receiver was appointed in respect of the subject of dispute. Bichhamali Dhal, herself a member of the second party when alive, made an application to the effect that she was old a...
Tag this Judgment!Jhumpa Bewa and ors. Vs. Sahadeb Rout and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-28-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori209
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Munsif, Kendrapara, refusing the petitioners (defendants 2 to 4) to adduce evidence in Title Suit No. 194 of 1978.2. Opposite parties 2 to 6 (Plaintiffs) instituted the suit for setting aside the sale deed in respect of the suit land executed by petitioner No. 1 in favour of opposite party No. 1 (defendant No. 1) on the ground that the sale deed was obtained by the latter by fraud and misrepresentation without payment of consideration to the former, an illiterate and purdanashin lady. The petitioners, in their written statement, supported the case of opposite parties 2 to 6, which makes opposite parties 2 to 6 being plaintiffs and the petitioners being defendants sail in the same boat. Opposite parties 2 to 6 closed their evidence by examining witnesses on 24-7-1984. The defendants were to commence their evidence on 25-7-1984. On that day opposite party No. 1, as well as, the petitioners f...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Chandra Dehuury and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-28-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ594
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talcher, against the petitioners Under Sections 143 and 379 of the Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short).2. The prosecution case lies within a short compass- The occurrence took place at about mid-night between 9-3-1973 and 10-3-1973 when the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Talcher (hereinafter referred to as 'F.C.I.') was under the process of construction and installation. Within its premises there was a steel yard inside which steel rods of different . sizes and other steel materials were stored. The steel yard did not have a complete boundary and a road run through it in order to facilitate vehicles to bring in and take out. steel materials. The steel yard was guarded by Security Guards belonging to the Central Industrial Security Force. At about mid-night when the o...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kausalya @ Shakuntala Devi Vs. Padmanav Padhee and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori28; 62(1986)CLT1
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Panposh in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act ('Act' for short). The plaintiff is the petitioner.2. The plaintiffs case in short is that in the year 1973 she acquired schedule 'B' land of the plaint measuring 65' X 40' out of plot No. 533/7(1) of mouza-Mahulpali within Rourkela town with a house standing thereon from one Narasingh Sahu. Since then she is in possession thereof by making improvements and has installed a flour mill. Defendant 1 (opposite party 1) is in possession of the adjacent land on the eastern side bearing plot No. 533/8 having his house thereon. Between the 30th Oct. and 1st Nov. 1979, defendant 1 in connivance with defendants 2 and 3 encroached upon 27' X 21' of land out of plot No. 533/7( 1) described in greater detail in schedule 'A' of the plaint and constructed a structure thereon without having any right to do so. Therefore, in insti...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Nilakantha Satapathy and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR640
B.K. Behra, J. 1. The respondents stood charged under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having killed Subash Chandra Satapathy (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'deceased') on August 16, 1979, at Nagardiha in the district of Ganjam by means of lathi, Kodi and Khanati, owing to a dispute with regard to the boundary of the lands of the parties. The deceased succumbed to the injuries two days after the occurrence. On the basis of the first information report lodged by P. W. 1, investigation was taken up and ultimately the respondents were prosecuted On a consideration of the evidence, the learned trial Judge has found that the charge has not been brought home to the respondents. 2. The sole witness to the occurrence (P. W. 8) had not supported the case of the prosecution for which he was put to leading questions under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution has relied on the dying declarations said to have been made by the deceased before P. Ws. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Akhila Parida Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ609
B.K. Behera, J.1. These two appeals arising out of the same judgment and order have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment. The three accused persons who figure as the respondents in the Govt. Appeal stood charged Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC (for short, the 'Code') with having committed the murder of Jaya Parida (to be referred to hereinafter as the 'deceased') by intentionally assaulting him to death by means of Tangia and lathi in furtherance of their common intention on Nov. 11, 1979 when he had come to the land for harvesting crops. While according to the case of the prosecution, the deceased had raised the crops, the case of the accused persons was that they had raised the crops in question which were being harvested by the deceased for which protest had been raised by the accused persons.2. The prosecution case, the plea of the defence and the evidence on which the prosecution sought reliance have been set out in details in the impu...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Lokanath Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-21-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT578; 1986(I)OLR576
B.N. Misra, A.C. J.1. This is an appeal by the State Government under Section 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 31. 8, 1981 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Puri, in Case No. 2(a) C C. 171 of 1979 acquiting the two respondents from charges under Section 47 read with Section 55 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.).2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated :The two respondents are two brothers and they live together in a house at Markandeswar Sahinpuri town. The front room of the house was used as a betel shop. ' W. A, Excise Sub-lnspectcr, received information that the two respondents had illegally stored Bhang in their house Acting on this information, P. W. 4 raided the house of the respondents on 26-5-1979 along with his Constable, P. W. 1. in the presence of P. Ws. 2 and 3, residents of Puri town, P. W. 4 searched the house of the respondents in accordance with law and re...
Tag this Judgment!The Deity Shri Jagannath Swami and ors. Vs. Biswanath Panda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-21-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT614; 1986(I)OLR636
P.C. Misra, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of this in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedules A, B and C of the plaint and for a further declaration that the defendants have no right to interfere with the possession of the suit land by the plaintiffs.2. Defendant No. 1 is the deity Sri Jagannath Swamy situated in village Dhunkapada and is represented by the trustees appointed under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). There was a proceeding under Section 68 of the Act against the plaintiffs and some others for recovery of profession in respect of the several items of properties including the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs in the said proceeding took a stand that the said lands were purchased by their father long long back and they have been in khas possession of the said lands for which the provisions of Section 68 of the Act would not be applicable. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments ultimat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »