Orissa Court November 1992 Judgments
Sikosa Alias Sitoda Mallik Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-30-1992
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR434
A. Pasayat, J.1. In this appeal from the District Jail , Phulbani Sikosa alias Sitoda Mallik, hereinafter referred to as the 'accused ', calls in question the legality of his convicition for an offence punishable Under Section 302 of the India Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short )and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by the learned Session Judge, Pulbani.2. The allegation which led to the trial of accused were that he voluntarily and intentionally caused death of one Tejsa, herein after referred to as the 'deceased' on 3-12-1987 in the evening hours.The background of the case as presented by the prosecution during the trial is on the date of occurrence Mohasa (PW 3) married Tengalu as second wife as per the prevalent tribe custom therefore, he was making arrangement to give feast to his village people. While coming to the village along with bride Tengalu, the groom party arranged for liquor on the way in village Kosabosa for the people who were bringing the girl. At that time ...
Tag this Judgment!Asit Kumar Panigrahi and Sitakanta Das Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-30-1992
Reported in: 76(1993)CLT260; 1993(I)OLR410
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The two petitioners in these two writ applications have assailed the decision taken by the Examination Committee of the Council of Higher Secondary Education to cancel in entirety the examinations of English Paper-I (Science) and English Papers-1 & 11 (Arts, regular and ex-regular) held in A. B. College centre, from where they had appeared. These examinations came to be cancelled by the Examination Committee relying on the reports of the Supervisor submitted to the Council. As both the cases have raised common questions of law and fact, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.2. The petitioners are students of A. B. College, Basudevpur. The examinations in question were held in that college on 24-3-1992 and 26-3-1992. The examinations have come to be cancelled because after perusal of the report of the Supervisor submitted to the Council, the Examination Committee took the view that the present was a case of mass copying.3. Shri Mohapat...
Tag this Judgment!A. Trinath Patro Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-26-1992
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR180
L. Rath, J.1. The grievance raised by the petitioner in this case is the legality of an order passed by the JMFC, Digapahandi on 1-8-1991 cancelling the bail earlier granted to him in the prosecution faced by him Under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act and Under Section 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. The petitioner faced the prosecution because of possession of 1300 gms. of opium and 1 kg, of Ganja which were seized from him. The learned Magistrate was of the view that since the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (briefly, 'the Act') makes provision in Section 82 that anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under any of the enactments repealed shall be deemed to have been taken under the Act, the offence committed By the petitioner/falls Under Sections 17 and 20(b)of the Act where the punishment is not lass than ten years of rigorous imprisonment which may extend to twenty years and also liability to fine not less than one lakh...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. KamiruddIn and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori238
Hansaria, C.J. 1. Whether Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act') is in the nature of a 'Henry VIII Clause', as contended by the petitioners, or discharges the function of a 'catalyst in the process of industrialisation', as is the case of the opposite parties, is the question needing our determination in this batch of petitions which have been taken up at the first instance for deciding the vires of the section.2. The attack on vires is mounted on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution. To put the arguments in a nutshell, the same is that Sections 29 and 31 (or for that matter, Section 32-G) of the Act operate in the same field and the former being harsher than the latter and there being no guidance as to which provision should be invoked in which case, Section 29 has conferred arbitrary power on the Corporations and is, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. To answer this, we have to sec the following:--(1) Whether the af...
Tag this Judgment!Ginni Vitreous Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1994Ori151; 75(1993)CLT606
A.K. Padhi, JJ.1. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company represented by its Managing Director, Sri M.K. Agrawala has filed this application praying for quashing the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraphs, Jatni refusing to provide new telephone connections in the name of the Company as well as in the name of Sri Agrawala for which they had applied for.2. The petitioner-company has been incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Khurda and factory site at Gurujang in the district of Puri. The company intends to manufacture Salt Glazed Sewer Pipes and has obtained a registration certificate from the DistrictIndustries Centre, Puri during the year 1990. According to the petitioner, it is fairly a big project and the petitioner is in badly need of two telephones, one at the factory site and the other at the registered office of the Company, for which the petitioner had applied on 8-3-1991. On receipt of the application the Indian Po...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sudhakanta Tripathy Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-24-1992
Reported in: 76(1993)CLT558; 1993(I)OLR369
L. Rath, J.1. In all these cases the petitioners assail the framing of charges Under Section 5(1) (c) & (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P. C Act') and Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Criminal Revision Nos. 446 to 452 of 1992 have been filed by the same petitioner in respect of the prosecutions he is facing in T. R. Case Nos. 20, 33, 25, 22 24, 23 and 21 of 1989 respectively. Criminal Revision Nos, 456 to 458 of 1992 have been filed by different petitioners. Notice of admission and final disposal had been given. Since the facts relating to the cases are all identical, they are disposed of by this common judgment.After stating the details of facts, it is found :3. The prosecution case is that R. K. Modi, the transport contractor who is also an accused in the cases had been entrusted with the work to transport the paper sludge from Choudwar to dif...
Tag this Judgment!Rabinarayan Mishra Vs. Hariprasad Sharma
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-23-1992
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT424; 1993(I)OLR203
L. Rath, J.1. The question urged in this revision is whether while convicting a person Under Section 448, IPC because of having committed offence under part-III of Section 441, IPC of the Orissa amendment, direction can be issued Under Section 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to deliver the premises to the complainant. The opposite party was admittedly a tenant in the house of the petitioner-complainant and because he did not vacate the house in spite of the necessary notice served upon him, the petitioner filed the complaint alleging an offence Under Section 448, IPC to have been committed. On trial the opposite party was convicted of the offence but the learned Magistrate refused to restore possession of the house to the complainant being of the view that Section 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not applicable and that the decision cited on behalf of the petitioner, 48(1979) CLT 519 (Dhani Dibya v. Kashinath Nanda), also was not applicable to the case. It is this order ...
Tag this Judgment!Adwait Charan Patnaik Vs. Pranabandhu Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: 1994(I)OLR507
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant in both these appeals. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for a declaration that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 12-5-1975 passed in appeal under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act and the revisions! order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 12-5-1976 passed under the said Act are illegal. Invalid and without jurisdiction and further prayed for recovery of possession, mesne profits and for permanent injunction.2. Plaintiff's case is based on the ground that the suit land comprising of three plots, plot Nos. 1157, 1158 and 1159 under Chata No. 359/1 had been leased out in favour of the plaintiff by the Tahasildar under the provisions of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act and plaintiff's name had been mutated and he had paid the royalty for the same. But against the order of settlement, defendants 1 and 5 preferred an appeal and the appellate author...
Tag this Judgment!Laba Behera Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR63
R.K. Patra, J.1. The appellant Laba Behera stands Convicted Under Section 304, Part of the Indian Penal Code (in brief IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution Case is that the grand-father of the deceased Govinda (hereinafter referred to as the deceased') after reclaiming a piece of government land had planted some mango trees. Prior to the occurrence, the appellant cleared up a portion of that land' with a view to cultivate the same for which there was hitch between the deceased and the appellant. On 11.10-1988 just before the evening when the deceased was returning from his field and was passing on the path in front of the house of the appellant, he (appellant), his wife accused No. 3 and their son, accused No. 2 attacked the deceased with axes, lathis causing severe breeding injuries on the head and other parts of his body. As' the decease'd did not return to his house, his wife in anxiety sent her son (PW 1) to search f...
Tag this Judgment!Dhusasan Samal Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT515; 1993(I)OLR116
R.K. Patra, J.1. The appellant contending the he has been found guilty Under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (in brief 1PC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') not upon proof but upon suspicion and supposition seeks to set at naught his conviction recorded by the trial Judge.2. The story ;The appellant had married the deceased Minati on 20-6-1986. There was demand of dowry in the shape of cash of Rs. 2000/- and one cot (Palanka) by the appellant and his sister-in-law (who was arrayed as co-accused but acquitted by the trial Judge) from the father of the deceased Minati which was not acceded to in full. A sum of Rs. 1500/- was only paid and the balance cash and the cot were promised to be given at later stage. As the father of the deceased failed to keep up the promise Minati was assaulted and was subjected to ill-treatment in the appellant's house. When the assault and ill-treatment reached its peak to the point of intoleration...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »