Orissa Court May 1998 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.
BipIn Behari Ransingh Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR378
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard.2. Prayer for modification of the order stands rejected inasmuch as on 29.1.1998 while rejecting the bail application filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C. on the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, a direction was issued that in the event the petitioner shall surrender in the Court of S.D.J.M., Khurda in G.R. Case No. 876 of 1997 on 12.2.1998 by 11.00 A.M. and apply for bail, learned S.D.J.M. shall do well to hear and dispose of the bail application on merit and in accordance with law during the 1st hour of the day. In Misc. Case No. 318 of 1998 prayer was made for modification of the above order and to extend the date of surender to 20.3.1998. That prayer was allowed. In spite of that petitioner did not surrender and has approached this Court again for extension of the date. It may be made clear that while rejecting the bail application, above type of observation is made only with a view that bail application is disposed of expeditiously. ...
Khetrabasi Mohapatra Vs. Prafulla Kumar Senapati
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-01-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3590
S.C. Datta, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of acquittal. Appellant and the respondents are complainant and accused persons respectively in I.C.C. No. 17 of 1985 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranpur. The respondents here in after referred to as the 'accused persons' stood their trial for the offence committed under Section 427, Indian Penal Code (in short the 'I.P.C.). Accused Nos. 1 and 2 further stood their trial for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. on the allegations that they committed mischief and voluntarily caused hurt to the appellant (here in after referred to as the 'complainant').2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the parties are neighbours. A stone boundary wall stands on the northern side of the house of the complainant and this is the demarcation of land between the house of the complainant and that of the accused persons. In the morning of 4-5-1985 on hearing the sound of digging, the complainant came near the wall and found that...
Batakrushna Tripathy and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-01-1998
Reported in: 87(1999)CLT347; 1998CriLJ3591
ORDERS.C. Datta, J.1. In this application the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 25-1-1995 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurda, thereby confirming the order dated 5-3-1994 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda (in short 'S.D.J.M.') taking cognizance of the offence committed under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325 and 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code (for short the 'I.P.C.') on the ground that the order taking cognizance has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. It has been further stated that the materials available on record do not prima facie constitute essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioners. The petitioners state that continuance of the proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of the Court and as such the proceeding is liable to be quashed.2. The fact of the case is that the petitioners stood their trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,...
Jambaswar Ghosh Vs. Prahallad Ghosh and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-01-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4532
S.C. Datta, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal.2. The case was instituted on the complaint of the present appellant. He has lodged the complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kodala, on the allegation that the respondents committed theft of paddy crop raised by him on his land on 2-12-1984 at about 9 A.M. in prosecution of their common object. The learned Magistrate framed charges against respondents for commissipn of offence under Sections 379/323/149, IPC.3. In support of his case, the complainant has examined himself and two other witnesses, whereas the defence has examined none. However, on appreciation of evidence, learned Magistrate held that the complainant has failed to prove the charges brought against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the trial Court acquitted all the accused persons.4. Being aggrieved thereby the complainant has come before this Court with special leave. It is contended on behalf of the ap...
Sanat Kumar Patnaik Vs. Binoy Kumar Nayak and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-01-1998
Reported in: 87(1999)CLT406; 1999CriLJ351
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. In Crl. Misc. Case No. 2363/92 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') petitioner has made the following prayer :-The petitioner prays that your Lordship may be graciously pleased to consider the facts stated in the petition and direct to Sessions Judge to allow the petitioner to withdraw the Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1986 and further direct the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal to issue summons to the accused persons and to complete the trial expeditiously. 2. Long and short of the background facts which reveals from the record is that in the night between 30th and 31st January, 1985 theft of gold ornaments and cash was committed in the house of the informant who is the present petitioner and the matter was reported to local police on 31-1-1985. On that basis G.R. Case No. 91 of 1985 was registered in the Court of S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal and the local police took up...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›