Orissa Court January 1988 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.
Kishore Chandra Behera and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-1988
Reported in: 65(1988)CLT307; 1989CriLJ166
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jharsuguda, framing charge against them under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'I.P.C.').2. A few facts may be stated in brief. On the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the Divisional Manager, Kendu Leaves, Jharsuguda, of the Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd., G. R. Case No. 773 of 1980 under Section 408, I.P.C. was initiated against one Binod Kumar Rathor. After investigation, final report was submitted on 18-6-1983 on the ground that there was insufficient evidence against the accused. The informant, however, filed a protest petition. On 22-5-1983 the case diary was called from the Investigating Officer. On 30-7-1983 a report was called from him. Till 5-4-1984 neither the case diary nor the report was received. In consideration of the facts stated in the protest petition, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed further investigation. Even after furthe...
Pabitra Kumar Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-1988
Reported in: 65(1988)CLT416; 1989CriLJ360
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. This is an application by the brother of detenu Babu alias Pratap Sahoo for a writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the order of detention dt. 1-8-87 (Annexure-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack (opposite party 3) under the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980.2. The ground of detention dt. 3-8-87 as per Annexure-2 furnished to the detenu reads as under:On 29-7-87 at about 9.30 P.M. while Minaketan Muduli, owner of Mangala Hotel, Badambadi was returning to his house in a Scooter with his servant Rabindra Bhola carrying a Black and while portable T. V. (Konark Gitanjali), yourself going on a rickshaw met them near their house at Badambadi. While Minaketan was keeping the Scooter inside the house, you enquired from his servant as to who was the owner of the T.V. When the servant replied that the T. V. belongs to Minaketan, you directed him with threats to keep the T.V. in your rickshaw. As he did not pay any heed to your dire...
P. Aashriya Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-1988
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3162
ORDERP.R. Tripathy, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel.2. Perused the order dated 15-9-1997 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No. 1122 of 1997 and order dated 15-12-1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Revision No. 77 of 1997. The accused in the aforesaid G.R. Case has prayed for custody of P. Radha Reddy, the victim girl.3. Vide order dated 15-9-1997, the S.D.J.M. rejected the prayer on the ground that the victim girl is a minor, i.e. below 18 years of age. Learned Sessions Judge has confirmed that order and dismissed the revision. The petitioner has prayed to get the custody of the victim girl inter alia on the ground of her pregnancy. It is also stated that she has become major in the meantime. It is further argued that the victim girl is not willing to go with her parents.4. She cannot be given in the custody of the petitioner who is the accused in the case on the allegation of ki...
Narayan Behera and ors. Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-25-1988
Reported in: 65(1988)CLT482; 1989CriLJ357
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. These writ applications have been filed by three detenus challenging the validity of the orders of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack, on 16-8-1987 under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The orders of detention were served on the petitioners on 16-2-1987 and the grounds of detention were served on the petitioners on 19-8-1987. The detention orders were duly approved by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act on 25th of Aug. 1987. The grounds of detention served on the petitioners indicate that the satisfaction of the District Magistrate was based on only one ground namely that on 12-8-1987, the three petitioners assaulted one Makeswar of Deulasahi when Manojkumar,' a friend of Kameswar obstructed them from assaulting. On this score, the petitioners bore a grudge and on 13-8-1987 at 9.40 A.M. they entered into the premises o...
Raghunath Das and ors. Vs. Hari Mohan Pani
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-25-1988
Reported in: 65(1988)CLT335; 1988CriLJ1573
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision arises out of the order passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhanjanagar rejecting the application for dispensing with personal attendance and being allowed to be represented under Section 205 Cr.P.C. Petitioners along with another accused filed an application in this Court for quashing the cognizance taken by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate which has been dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 19-10-1987 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 823 of 1987.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a school teacher. Petitioner No. 2 is an employee of a Regional Co-operative Marketing Society. Petitioner, No. 3 is a student of a Law College. The fourth accused, a school student, has been' allowed to be represented by the impugned order.3. Representation is a mode of a appearance of an accused. It is a matter between the Court and the accused. In prosecutions initiated on police report, the Public Prosecutor has a right to be heard on the questio...
Jamuna Chand Vs. Ganesh Prasad Gupta and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-25-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC493
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.2. The appellant is the widow of deceased Rama Chandra Chand. The deceased was going on his scooter on the date of occurrence and near about the I.T.I., crossing at Rourkela, the bus bearing registration No. OSO 6780 dashed against the scooter as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. This application having been filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal conducted the inquiry. Before the Tribunal,' two witnesses were; examined on behalf of the claimant and on behalf of the respondents, the driver of the bus who was driving the vehicle was examined as OPW 1. The learned Tribunal on consideration of the evidence before him came to the conclusion that the accident in question occurred not on account of any negligence of the driver of the vehicle but on account of the negligence of the deceased himself and in that view of the matter, he...
Dileswar Sahu and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Sambalpur
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ori47; 66(1988)CLT334
ORDERL. Rath, J.1. This revision at the instance of the decree-holder is directed against an order of the executing Court recording an order dropping the execution proceeding on full satisfaction. The execution case was started for satisfaction of an award in a Land Acquisition Case wherein the decree-holder was awarded compensation of Rs. 67,300/- with 15% of solatium and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of delivery of possession of the land till the receipt of payment. An appeal was preferred by the State registered as First Appeal No. 135 of 1973 in this Court. In the meantime the execution case having been levied, the State moved for stay of the same. An order of stay was passed which was modified on 22-3-74 directing the State to deposit the entire decretal amount including the advocate's fee within six weeks in the executing Court failing which the order of stay was to stand vacated. After some deposits were made an order was passed by this Court on 14-3-75 allo...
Bhagirathi Chhatoi Vs. Adikanda Chhatoi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Ori285; 66(1988)CLT172
L. Rath, J.1. The remand of a suit brought by respondent 1 for enforcement of his right under Section 22(1) of the Hindu Succession Act with prayer for permanent injunction in respect of transfer of the suit property in favour of respondent 2 or to any other person and for a mandatory injunction I against the appellant to execute a registered sale deed in respect 'of 'A' schedule land of the plaint at a price to be fixed by the court and for ancillary and consequential reliefs has goaded the defendant 1 appellant to prefer this appeal Admittedly, respondent 1 and the appellant are brothers being the sons of one Giridhari. It was the case of the respondent 1 that the suit property consisting of residential house and a back courtyard was the joint family dwelling house of both parties and that after the death of their father both the parties though had amicably partitioned the property by a registered deed of partition on 20th January, 1970, yet no demarcation had been put to indicate th...
Makar Rout Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: 1988(16)ECC13; 1988(36)ELT466(Ori)
V. Gopalaswamy, J.1. This revision is preferred by the accused-petitioners against the judgment of the Session Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1983 dated 30.8.1983 confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack in 2(c)CCNo. 54 of 1981.2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 28.2.1981 at Patrika Mahal, in Paradeep Port, the Customs Officer searched the house of the accused-petitioner and recovered contraband articles such as 13 bottles of whisky, etc., and on the basis of such recoveries proceeding was initiated against them under Section 135 of the Customs Act.3. The plea of the petitioners is that the contraband articles in question were not recovered from their possession. The defence has examined D.W. 1 in support of their plea.4. The prosecution has examined, in all, 4 P.Ws. to prove its case. P.W. 2 is the Superintendent of Customs and P.Ws. 1 and 3 are Inspectors of Customs. P.W. 4 is a t...
Ramnarayan Patnaik Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ172
L. Rath, J.1. The conviction of the appellant under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code with imposition of sentence of R. I. for one year under the Prevention of Corruption Act with no separate sentence under Section 161, I.P.C. has occasioned this . appeal. P. W. 3 the informant, was a sweeper in the headquarters hospital at Sambalpur and had been previously also working in Talapatia Government Dispensary and while posted at Talapatia had applied for leave for six months. He had also been occupying a rented house while employed at Sambalpur and had made an application to the C.D.M.O., Sambalpur for being allowed to draw his leave salary and house rent allowance for a period of 21 to 22 months. Besides, he had also moved the C.D.M.O. for his transfer from Sambalpur either to Dhama or Themera. It is the prosecution case that a few days prior to 23-2-79, the date of occurrence, P.W. 3 had met the C.D.M....