Orissa Court January 1996 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.
Jayakrishna Bag and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT455; 1996(I)OLR161
D.M. Patnaik, J. 1. In the above cases the petitioners move for bail for alleged offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the 'Act').2. The collective voice of the petitioner's counsel in all these cases and other cases of similar nature manifests in their devoutness in human dignity and liberty, when Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned counsel for one of the petitioners as a prelude to his argument leferred to the sying of atrick Henery 'give me liberty or give me death' quoted by one of the learned Judges of this Court in the case of Mangal Hembram v. State of Orissa reported in 53 (1982) CLT 259.3. Liberty is fundamental and precious to everybody. Man is a divine being. He lives in the society and therefore, claims right, liberty and equality. Human rights cannot be evaluated in isolation. They have to be read in the social context. Liberty of an individual can be curtailed in a given situation when exercise of that right of the individual works out ...
Sri Rama Ballav Rath Vs. State of Orissa, Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT841; 1996(I)OLR225
A. Pasaayt, J. 1. Action of the State of Orissa and the Union of India in extending tenure of service of opp. party No. 3 after superannuation has been questioned by the petitioner alleging that such extension for the third time was actuated with mala fide, favouritism, nepotism and ulterior motives, and not on public ground which is sine qua non for such extension. Petitioner claims to have filed the petition in public interest as a Public Interest Litigation, It is urged that there was no semblance of public interest involved and there has been grouss misuse of the power of extension. Prayer has been made to delineate the powers, so that in future there is no recurrence of the unsavoury and undesirable situation which has arisen in the case at hand.2. A brief reference to the factual and the statutory provision holding the field would suffice.Opp. party No. 3 while functioning-as the Chief Secretary of Orissa was given three extensions of six months' duration each under the first pro...
Md. Nasrul Haque Vs. Refique Khan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT501; 1996(I)OLR329
A. Pasayat, J. 1. In spite of service of notice the opposite parties have not entered appearance.2. A point regarding maintainability of the application has been raised. It is stated that the present application is by the complainant against the order of acquittal passed by the appellate authority, and therefore criminal revision in terms of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') ought to have been filed.3. Factual aspects need not be noted in detail except what is absolutely necessary for disposal of the point regarding maintainability. Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') faced trial in the Court of Additional Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, first class, Cuttack in ICC No. 45 of 1988 (Trial No. 204 of 1P91) on the basis of a complaint lodged by the petitioner. They were found guilty and were sentenced to undergo various sentences. In appeal the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack acquitted the accused opposite pa...
Satchidananda Jena Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1996
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT473; 1996CriLJ1863; 1996(I)OLR314
A. Pasayat, J. 1. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Banpur (in short, 'the JMFC') to take action in terms of Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Cr PC') is assailed in this application.2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice : Petitioner was required to be examined as a witness in G. R. Case No. 176 of 1992 on the file of the learned JMFC. In spite of due intimation for appearance, petitioner did not appear on two dates, i. e., 16-12-1993 and 8-3-1994, The learned JMFC was of the view that the petitioner was absent without any reasonable and just excuse and, therefore, action in terms of Section 380, Cr PC was called for. Petitioner submitted his reply in response to the notice and submitted that the absence was unintentional and on account of engagement in official duty at some other places. Learned JMFC was of the view that the excuses offered were neither acceptable nor had any ring of truth in them. No ma...
Pagala Padhi Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-05-1996
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR193
R.K. Dash, J. 1. Can the Court curtail personal liberty of a prisoner when statute permits him to be freed from custody This is the moot question that falls for consideration in the present Misc. Case.2. The petitioner and two others are accused in S. T. Case No. 214 of 1995 pending before the Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. The offence alleged against them is one under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 47(a), Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. All these three accused persons were arrested and forwarded to custody on 14-9-1995. On completion of 60 days period of detention which expired on 22-11-1995 all the accused persons applied for their release on 23-11-1995 urging that they have acquired a statutory right to be freed from custody. The learned Special Court dealing with the case accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the accused persons but while allowing the prayer of the accused persons, rejected the petitioner's prayer on the ground that his bail a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›