Orissa Court September 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.
Ajaya Kumar Bej Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-07-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ898; 1995(II)OLR686
A. Pasayat, J.1. The appellant (also described as the 'accused') assails his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the 'Act') and sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, with default sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year attached to it, as directed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore.2. Prosecution accusations on the basis of which the accused faced trial are as follows :On 4-4-1992 the Officer-in-charge of Bhograi Police Station (PW 4) got reliable information that the appellant was cultivating cannabis plants in his backyard. At about 11 p. m. that day he along with his staff surrounded the house of the accused which is about a furlong away from the Police Station, and searched his backyard. During search he found nine cannabis plants of different sizes inside the backyard. The plants were uprooted and seized in presence of witnesses, under s...
Debendranath Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa, Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-06-1995
Reported in: 1995(II)OLR545
A. Pasayat, J. 1. The order passed by Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa on a reference made by Land Reforms Commissioner, Orissa under Section 59 (2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (in short, the 'Act') is the subject-matter of challenge. The Member while remitting the matter back to the Tahasildar for fresh consideration in view of several procedural infractions, gave certain observations on merits also.2. Mr. A. R. Das, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Member suffers from various infirmities. It is submitted that the Revenue Officer passed the order by virtually reviewing his earlier order and that is not permissible in view of limited scope of Section 60 of the Act. Additionally it is submitted that when the matter was being remitted to take care of procedural aspects, no finding on merits should have been recorded.Mr. N. Prusty, learned counsel for State supported the order stating that the material aspects on which the Tahasildar was to ac...
Duryodhan Samal and ors. Vs. Padma Charan Biswal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-01-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ori47
D.M. Patnaik, J.1. The sole point for decision in this appeal is, whether the respondent No. 1 has acquired a prescriptive right of easement of way over the disputed plots, morefully described in the schedules to the plaint as Ka, Kha, Ga and Gha, the same being the front courtyard(Danda) lying to the East of the respective residential houses of the plaintiff-appellants. The sole defendantclaims that he has been using the disputed land as a passage from his house to the villageroad on the south. It is the concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the plaintiffs have title to the disputed lands in question. But the defendant having acquired easementary right of using the disputed lands as path, the plaintiffs' suit has been dismissed bythe Courts below and therefore, the plaintiffsare in appeal before this Court.2. Mr. P. Kar, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that the Courts below committed gross error in not considering the absence of materials with regard to...
Syed Abdul Jamil Vs. Sharifa Bibi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-01-1995
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR102
D.M. Patnaik, J.1. In this second appeal the defendant challenges the lower appellate Court's judgment decreeing -the plaintiff's suit for delivery of vacant possession of the house.2. Plaintiff's case is, Syed Mahamad Noor was the cousin brother of Syed Abdul Raheman, the father of the plaintiff and the defendant. Rokhia Bibi was the wife of late Syed Mahamad Noor. She had no issue through him. She adopted the plaintiff and the latter took her care staying in the disputed house, which belonged to Rokhia Bibi. Out of love and affection she executed a registered deed of settlement on 6-10-1959 and also put the plaintiff in possession of the house. Ths defendant and his father late Abdul Raheman were also signatories to the said deed. Since the defendant created disturbance in her possession, she filed the suit for declaration of title and possession.3. The defendant contested the case by pleading that the house in question belonging to his father and the plaintiff had no interest in the...
Sobha Kumbhar and anr. Vs. Kunja Luha
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-01-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ735
ORDERR.K. Dash, J.1. The order of conviction and sentence of the accused persons under Sections 447 and 506, I.P.C, passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Birmaharajpur, in ICC No. 12 of 1991 and upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir, is assailed in this revision.2. Shortly stated, the case of the complainant, opposite party herein, is that he being the adopted son of one Hansa Tandiani is in possession of all her properties including the disputed land measuring 4.1.910 decs, on 17-6-91 at about 8 A.M. when Bhola Mahananda, P.W. 2 was ploughing the disputed land, being engaged by him, all the accused persons arrived there and unyoked the plough. To their such illegal action he raised protest, but they abused him in filthy language and threatened to assault. The matter was then brought to the notice of the Officer-in-charge of Birmaharajpur P.S. who refused to take any action. Hence the complaint.3. Accused persons advanced the plea of bona fide cl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›