Orissa Court August 1986 Judgments
Hukum Pradhan Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ251
L. Rath, J.1. This appeal has been preferred from jail by the appellant having been convicted underS. 302, I.P.C, for having committed murder of one Dinabandhu A mat, his co-villager by shooting an arrow.2. The prosecution case as unfolded by the evidence is that on 4-6-1981 at about 7,00 A.M. while the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle from his house towards Ranchi road, the appellant standing behind the house of another co-villager Indradeo Singh shot an arrow which hit the deceased in the right side of his chest just near the exit of the school compound. As a result of the hitting of the arrow, the deceased turned his bicycle towards the left and after proceeding for a distance of 5 to 10 cubits dropped on the ground. P.W. 3 (Saraswati Ekka) and P.W. 5 (Balamati Dei) who were .at the tube well situated nearly within the school compound as also P.W. 4 (Baidehi Das), who was approaching the tube well saw the occurrence. A hue and cry was raised by the witnesses and several person...
Tag this Judgment!Achutananda Sahoo Vs. Dhruba Ch. Sahoo and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori179; 62(1986)CLT416
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. Defendant No. 1 is the petitioner against an order of the trial court refusing to accept the list of witnesses filed by the defendant No. 1 on the date he was to adduce evidence in this case. 2. On 7-4-1986, defendant No. 1 filed a fist wherein he indicated that he and one Laxmidhar Sahu were in attendance. However, his turn for examination of witnesses did not reach on that date. On 9-4-1986, he filed a list of six witnesses to be examined on his behalf. The plaintiff seriously objected to such a list on the ground that the list was not filed earlier and no acceptable reason has been assigned for such delay in filing the list. The learned trying Judge accepted the submission of the plaintiff and did not allowed the defendant No. 1 to examine witnesses as per the list furnished that day. The same is the subject-matter of this revision. 3. Mr. S. Kr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1, submitted that the Parliament by incorpora...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Latex Fibre Corporation Vs. Smt. Gayatri Devi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: II(1986)ACC470; 1986(II)OLR320
S.C. Mohapatra, J.Owner is the appellant in this appeal Under Section 110-D of the Mator Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the Act').After stating the facts and contentions of the counsel, His Lordship observed :10. Normally, Courts in appeal are not to interfere with the quantum fixed. However, having found that the quantum has not been determined reasonably I am required to examine the materials to determine the just compensation to be awarded in this case.11. The basis of the claim of the legal representatives of the deceased in this case is only the loss of dependency, in the claim petition, it has been stated as follows :The particulars of compensation claimed is given blow:'The average age of the deceased he would have survived is 60 years. His yearly income is Rs. 9,600/- (nine thousand six hundred) and for 29 years the deceased would have earned Rs. 2,78,400/- (two lakhs seventy-eight thousand four hundred)'.In item 21 of the claim petition dealing with the statement of amount of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Prasad Gupta Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT480; 1986(II)OLR403
G.B. Patniak, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted Under Section 16(1)(a) read with section 7(i) Prevention . of Food Adulteration Act (for short., 'the Act) to undergo rigorous imprisonment. four month and to pay a fine of Rs. is 500/ in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of months by the Sub-Divisional Judicial, Magistrate, Panposh, for selling ground nut-oil which was found on analysis to be conviction and sentence against the petitioner have Session Judge in appeal and hence the present revision .2. According to prosecution case, the petitioner is a grocery shop owner , On 27.10. 1978 the Food inspector, Sundargarh, and his peon (P. W 2) visited the shop premises of the petitioner at 10,15 a. m. and after duly the serving the notice (Ex. 2 ) took a sample of the refined ground-nut oil which was exhibited for sale in his shop on payment of the price of 5.35 as per Ex. 1. the sample was then divided into three parts and put into clean and dry bottles and then the bot...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›