Orissa Court April 1986 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.
Lungasa Patamajhi and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-03-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT547; 1986(I)OLR506
B.N. Misra, Acting C.J.1. The two appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted under Sections 201/34, I. P. C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated The two appellants belong to village Slindipadar. Deceased, Jigura Rupamajhi, belonged to village Sartulu. The distance between the two villages is approximately two miles. The deceased was an Adibasi and so are the two appellants and the two villages are Adibasi villages On 7.12.1980 around 8 a.m. the deceased left his house in the company of two other persons to fetch a fowl from village Rada to be used for the treatment of his daughter who had been ill for the past week. It is alleged that on his way to village Rada the deceased went to the house of the appellants and took Liquor. Thereafter the two appellants and the dec...
Radhamohan Panda and 23 ors. Vs. Brundaban Naik and 9 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-03-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR586
K.P. Mohaptra, J.1. In this criminal revision the petitioners who were the members of the first party, have prayed for quashing the proceeding under Section 145 in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short).2. It is necessary to relate the history of the case to show how a proceeding initiated on police report on 16.11.1974 has still been kept alive even after a decade. On 16.11.1974 the preliminary order under Section 145 of the Code was drawn up and both parties were directed to appear and file their written statements Simultaneously, because appeared to be a case of emergency, the disputed land with standing crops was attached under Section 146(1) of the Code. In response to the notice, both parties appeared, filed their written statements and adduced evidence, both oral and documentary, on consideration of which the learned Executive Magistrate Bhanjanagar, by order dated 13.9.1976 declared the possession of ...
iswar Chandra Mishra and anr. Vs. Parsuram Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-02-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT592; 1986(I)OLR492
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a second appeal under Order 21, Rule 103, Civil Procedure Code, against an order rejecting the application under Order 21, Rule 100, C. P. C., as not maintainable.2. The applicant is a third party. He filed an application for setting aside the delivery of possession of plot No. 1417 which was not the subject-matter of the decree. The executing Court on the basis of materials held that the allegation in the application that portion of plot No. 1417 was delivered is not correct. In appeal by the applicant, it was . held by the appellate Court that plot No. 1417 not being the subject-matter in the decree the application is not maintainable.3. A bare perusal of Rules 99 and 100 of Order 21, C. P. C, as per the amendment of the Code in 1976 makes it clear that the application is entertainable only where the property is covered under the decree. On the admitted position that plot No. 1417 was not a part of the property involved in the decree, the appellate Court ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›