Orissa Court July 1991 Judgments
Padma Behari Lal Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1991
Reported in: II(1992)ACC440; 1992ACJ554; AIR1992Ori68
P.C. Misra, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application is an unfortunate father whose son Abhiram Lal died on 9-6-1988 at about 1.00 a.m. near Manikghosh bazar in the town of Cuttack having come in contact with a live electric wire detached from the electric pole. He was coming on a bicycle and could not know of the existence of the hanging live wire and got electrocuted when he came in contact with the said live wire. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay adequate compensation which, according to the petitioner, occurred on account of the gross negligence of the Electricity Board.2. The petitioner has alleged that the Electricity Board is guilty of negligence as due care and caution was not taken by it for maintenance of the electric wires used for supply of electricity and it has further been alleged that in spite of information to the local electric sub-station, no preventive action was taken to disconnect the power line even after the detachment...
Tag this Judgment!Rabinarayan Das Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ269; 1991(II)OLR381
A. Pasayat, J.1. Blinded by lust, the petitioner committed rape on a blind girl. That is the allegation. The accusation was accepted by the learned Assistant Sessions judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, who convicted the petitioner Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1800 (in short 'IPC') and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Additionally, he found that the petitioner was guilty under Secs. 366 and 342, IPC and awarded sentences of two years and three months rigorous imprisonment respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar upheld the convictions and sentences.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual backdrop as depicted by the prosecution is that the prosecutrix, a blind girl (PW 1) used to go to Bhubaneswar for trainings in music. On 6-3-1987, she was travelling from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar by bus. The petitioner was a co-passenger and when the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Pitambar Buhan and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ645
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. What is meant by taking cognizance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'), and the scope for interference with an order taking cognizance form the subject-matter of adjudication in this case.2. Advertence to factual aspects shall be made later, because analysis of the aforesaid legal positions would have effect thereon.3. Section 190 of the Code deals with power of the Magistrate to take cognizance. It provides that subject to the provisions of Chapter XIV, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence, -- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts, which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts, and (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. Section 191 obliges the Magistrate when he takes cognizance of ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Sahu Vs. Sushama Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2912
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner assails correctness of order passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur (in short the 'SDJMJ') in an application filed by the opposite party No. 1 Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short the 'Code), claiming maintenance for herself and her minor daughter (opp. party No. 2).2. According to the claimant, she married petitioner in the year 1979 according to Hindu rites and customs, and opp. party No. 2 was born out of their wedlock in the year 1984, without any rhyme and reason they have been forcibly driven out from the house of petitioner. It is also alleged that on 1-4-1986 petitioner married one Renubala, daughter of Rama Chandra Sahu of Maganpur according to Gandharb form in the temple of Lord Baladevjau. Claim of Rs. 500/- for each of the opp. parties was made. While petitioner accepted factum of marriage, he disputed allegations of forcibly driving out and second marriage.3. In order to further their...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Kumar Badajena Vs. Bichitrananda Khatei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori133
A.K. Padhi, J.1. Challenging the orders of the Revisional Authority and that of Member, Board of Revenue under Section 59(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), arising out of an application under Section 36-A of the Act, this writ application has been filed:2. In the writ application the petitioner has asserted that while the petitioner was a minor the disputed property comprising an area of Ac. 2.43 decimals was purchased by him from one Tilatoma Bhuyan. After the purchase there was a proceeding under Section 144, Cr.P.C. between the petitioner and Damei Khatei, the grand father of opp. party No. 1 which was converted to one under Section 145, Cr.P.C. proceeding and possession was declared in favour of the petitioner. During the pendency of the 145, Cr.P.C. proceeding the disputed property was in attachment. After conclusion of enquiry there was delivery of possession. Grand father of opp. party No. 1 had filed an application under Section 26(2) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagaban Jena and anr. Vs. Shibu Majhi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR387
S.K. Mohanty, J.1. This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing Annexure-11, the appellate order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, declaring transaction of sale in favour of petitioner No 2 as void, being hit by Section 3 (1) of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (by Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956 (Orissa Regulation No. 2 of 1956) and directing ejectment of petitioners.2. Facts of the case lie in a small compass.Petitione No. 2 Labanyamani purchased four Manas and odd of lands spread over eight plots in mouza Nuagaon from one Sankhala Majhi, a member of Scheduled Tribe by registered sale deed dated 20-9-1957. On the same day, Sankhala applied before the S. D. O., Baripada, for permission to sell the aforesaid lands in favour of petitioner No. 2 and the same was allowed on 16-12-1957. Thereafter on 23 2-1981, opp. party No. 1 Shibu Majhi, claiming tn be the successor of Sankhala, prayed for restoration...
Tag this Judgment!Mihir Alias Bhikari Charan Sahu Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ488; 1991(II)OLR403
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner assails his conviction Under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC ) and sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandapur (in short 'SDJM') and affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar.2. The accusations leading to the trial of the petitioner are that on 6-7-1985 at village Belsundari under Ramachandrapur Police Station, the victim girl, a minor, had been to the tailoring shop of the accused-petitioner during mid-day to get some stitched garments. Taking advantage of absence of others, the accused took the victim girl to a nearby room which was partitioned by a cloth screen, and committed an unnatural offence. The victim girl cried out of pain and when she left the place the accused persuaded her not to disclose the fact. She came to her house and since her father was absent, reported the matter to her mother and when her father came back first-informa...
Tag this Judgment!Biswanath Bhagat Vs. Sanjay Saha @ Nanki Saha and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3105; 1991(II)OLR424
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner, the informant, in G. R. Case No, 1157 of 1988 pending in the Court of learned Subdivisional judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack (in-short-'SDJM') questions legality of the order of bail passed in respect of the opp. parties.2. Background facts as asserted are that on the , basis of an information lodged at Purighat Police Station on 18-8-1988 alleging the opp. parties herein threw acid on the face and other parts of the body of one Jitendra Kumar jaiswal son of the informant), P. S. Case No. 165 of 1988 was registered and a case under Secs. 324/341, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') was booked and investigation was taken up. On 20 8-1988 a petition was filed by opp. party No. 2 along with two others, namely Siba Kumar Saha and Sona Devi for being released on bail. But the bail application was not pressed since the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a memorandum stating that on the allegations made, an offence Under Section 307, IPC was made ou...
Tag this Judgment!Asit Kumar SwaIn Vs. Krupasindhu SwaIn and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR138
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner assails correctness of order passed by learned Subordinate Judge. Kamakshyanagar allowing prayer of ppp. party No. 2 for impletion as a defendant.2. Factual back-drop is as follows :A suit was filed by present petitioner for declaration of his right title and interest over suit land. Primarily his case as inferable from the plaint is that defendant had two daughters ; elder one was married to Gobinda, natural father of plaintiff; since the defendant had no son to look after him and his property, he kept Gobinda, in his house since his marriage to look after the properties; Gobinda was managing the family out of income from agriculture and his salary. He also bore entire expenses of marriage of Khulana, the younger daughter of defendant. After Gobinda had a second son, Krupasindhu wanted to adopt plaintiff in order to perpetuate his line of succession, to which natural parents of the plaintiff agreed; on 15- 5-1973 defendant with the consent of his wife took ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Panda and anr. Etc. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ491
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. The ambience of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act') is the subject-matter of adjudication in these applications for bail. Point involved being of singular importance, learned counsel for the parties have made copious reference to various provisions of the Act, and have raised several interesting and important points for consideration.2. Controversy revolves round the question whether the mandate contained in Section 37 to the effect that where a person is accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under the Act, he shall not be released on bail or on his own bond, unless court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, is applicable to the cases covered Under Section 20(b)(i) of the Act. According to learned counsel for petitioners, restrictions imposed ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »