Orissa Court August 1995 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.
Danardan Samal Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: 1995(II)OLR520
P. Ray, J. 1. The petitioner in the present revisional application along with others were charged for committing offence under Sections 457, 335 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and under Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosives Act. The trial Court found the petitioner and three others guilty under Sections 457/395, IPC and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for three years under Section 457 and for seven years under Section 395, IPC. The petitioner and three others preferred Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1992 before the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore. The appeal Court upheld the convictions and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the appeal Court, the petitioner has moved this revisional application before this Court. 2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the materials on record, is :On November 19, 1990 at about 1.40 a. m. the accused person including the petitioner broke open the door of one Bapi Senapati, committed robb...
Baikunthnath Mohanta Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ661
A. Pasayat, J.1. In this appeal under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') challenge is to the direction given by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar at the conclusion of trial for confiscation of the gun which was seized during investigation.2. Appellant Baikunthnath Mohanta (hereinafter also referred to us 'the accused') along with one Ganeswar Mahanta, faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') on the allegation that they attempted to commit murder of one Dambarudhar Patra. Learned Sessions Judge found that the materials were inadequate to fasten culpability on the accused persons. Accordingly he directed their acquittal, but observed that there was an allegation against the present appellant for having misused his gun though not proved, and he felt that the licensing authority may take proper steps for cancellation of licence and the gun is to be confiscated an...
Badridas Chandak Vs. Purna Chandra Mishra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ902
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner faced trial for commission of an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the 'Act') for alleged contravention of Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short, the 'Rules'). It was alleged that he was selling food articles without requisite licence. Though there was an allegation of selling adulterated food articles, the same was not accepted by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Cuttack (in short, the 'ACJM')- For the contravention of Rule 50 of the Rules petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. In default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. In appeal, conviction and sentence were maintained by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack. 2. Background facts as presented by prosecution stated in brief are as follows:The Food Inspector atta...
Debadutta Pal Vs. Indumati Pal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT413; 1995(II)OLR449
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Petitioner calls in question legality of order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Judge), First Court. Cuttack accepting prayer of defendant No. 1-opp. party No. 1 to the effect that her oral evidence be taken under Order 18, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'CPC'). Application filed by opp. party No. 1 indicated the reason for seeking such examination to be that being an octogenarian old lady she was gradually losing her mental balance and wanted to go to her daughter's place at Gujarat which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. In the peculiar circumstances the prayer was accepted.2. Learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the expression 'at any time after institution of the suit' cannot be construed to mean at a point of time before written statement was filed. It is stated that some of the defendants have not yet entered appearance and/or have not filed their written statements. After they do so there...
Gananath Jena Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ229; 1995(II)OLR492
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Gananath Jena (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') calls in question legality of his conviction for the offences punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511, and Sections 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') as made by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore, and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore. For such conviction, petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, six months and one year respectively with a direction to their concurrent running.2. Background facts leading to trial of the petitioner as portrayed by the prosecution are as follows :The accused and the victim, whose name need not be described (PW 6), who is wife of PW 3 belong to same village. On 10-12-1988 the victim was alone in his house after her husband had left for work. At about noon time, after taking her meal she was asleep in her room. The accused taking advantage of ...
Rajkishore Satpathy Vs. Harekrushna Satpathy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: 1995(II)OLR332
P. Ray, J.1. The present Second Appeal is at the instance of defendant No. 1-appellant against the judgment and decree of the reversal.2. The plaintiffs being the heirs of one Somanath Satpathy instituted a suit for declaration of title in respect of eastern portion of Plot No. 483 and western portion of Plot No. 484 claiming to be in their possession for confirmation of possession of alternatively for recovery of possession in case they were found to be dispossessed and permanent injunction. 3. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated hereinbelow :The Plot Nos. 483 and 484 were the joint properties of Somanath Satpathy, D. Jena,. B. Jena, Rajib Jena, Daitari Mohapatra and Batakrishna Mohapatra and Somanath had 8 annas share in those properties. The said plots were amicably partitioned and Somanath got eastern 140 decimals of Plot No. 483 and western 100 decimals of Plot No. 484 in his allotment. The said 240 decimals comprised a compact area and Somanath was possessing the same alo...
Dilip Kumar Naik Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-07-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ454Ori
B.N. Dash, J.1. The petitioner, an employee of the State Bank of India, has assailed in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the order dated March 13, 1992 of the disciplinary authority i.e. the Assistant General Manager, Region III, State Bank of India (opposite party No. 3) dismissing him from service, copy of which is Annexure-7 as also the appellate order of the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India (opposite party No. 2) confirming the order of the disciplinary authority (Annexure-11).2. The petitioner Dilip Kumar Naik having been appointed as Cashier-cum-Clerk after being selected in the competitive examination from the Scheduled Caste quota, as per Annexure-1, joined service. While he was serving as Cashier in the Agricultural Development Branch of the State Bank of India, G. Udayagiri in the district of Phulbani, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him in the year 1986 in CRM/DAC No. 352 alleging gross misconduct in securing ap...
Southern Explosives Company Private Limited Vs. Orissa Sales Tax Tribu ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-04-1995
Reported in: 1995(II)OLR491
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Petitioner calls in question legality of conclusion of Orissa Sales-Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (in short, .the 'Tribunal') holding that the order of the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 100(C) of 1985-86 was served much prior to the date on which the petitioner claims to have received it. The Tribunal's conclusion as reflected in the impugned order dated 24-1-1995 (Annexure-5) was based on a mention in the memorandum of appeal to the following effect in the place intended to contain name and address of the petitioner (appellant before the Tribunal) :'M/s. Southern Explosives Co.,C/o. I. D. L. Chemicals Ltd.,Sonaparbat, Rourkela--16.'With reference to the column meant for indicating the address for service of notice, i. e. Column 6 in the form of Memorandum of Appeal (Form XVIII), it is submitted; that the address was given as follows :'M/s. Southern Explosives Co.,C/o. S.S. Agarwala, Advocate,Uditnagar. Rourkela-12.'On verification, we find the submission to be correct. We al...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›