Orissa Court August 2006 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.
State of Orissa Vs. Umesh Khanda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR657
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Order of acquittal passed on 30th September, 1989 by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial Case No. 4/7 of 1989 is under challenge.2. Accused faced his trial for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. on the allegation that on 30th August, 1988 in morning hours at about 6.00 A.M., when the victim girl had gone to ease on an open field locally known as 'Amguda', the accused, a co-villager, met her and sought her consent for cohabitation and when she refused, he lifted her to a distance and committed rape on her. According to the prosecution, soon after the occurrence of rape, the victim girl (P.W.1) reported the fact to Budhuram (P.W.9), who was working in a nearby field and that he escorted her to her house. On reaching her house, P.W.1 narrated the incident to her parents, then police was intimated and she was examined by the lady doctor (P.W.4) in District Headquarters Hospital at Sundergarh. When the lady doctor (P.W.4) examined the victim...
Parshotam Lal Vadera Vs. Satyanarayan Sadangi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT530
A.S. Naidu, J.1. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the point of law raised is as to whether conducting an inquiry by a Magistrate himself or directing police to cause investigation in a case where accused is residing at a place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, before issuing process, is mandatory in view of the amended provision of Section 202.2. On the basis of a complaint filed by the present opposite party before the SDJM, Nabarangpur alleging commission of offences by the petitioner and four of his co-accused under Section 193/197/199/417/418/420/465/471/34 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 465/628 of the Companies Act, 1956, ICC No. 27 of 2006 was registered. In the said complaint case, Learned SDJM on 15.7.2006 passed the following order:The complainant Satyanarayan Sarangi is present along with his advocates. He is examined under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and accordingly his initial st...
iswar Dehury Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT513; 2006(II)OLR651
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard this Jail Criminal Appeal is as against the order of conviction passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deogarh in Sessions Trial Case No. 75/9 of 2002.2. Prosecution case is that on 24.10.2001 the deceased went with the accused to consume Handia. They left house of the accused at about 4 P.M. In the night, the accused returned to his house but the deceased did not. On the query of P.W. 2, the widow of the deceased, accused replied that the deceased had gone to a Blacksmith. But on the following day morning, i.e., on 25.10.2001, P.W. 2 discovered the dead body of the deceased amongst a bushy forest and intimated the fact to villagers saying that on the previous day the deceased had gone together with the accused to consume Handia. The villagers confronted the circumstances to the accused at the instance of Grama Rakhi, but he gave evasive reply and when the Grama Rakhi with threat asked him to tell the truth, he made extra-judicial confession stating that...
Bhagaban Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT598; 2007CriLJ376
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard.2. Appellant challenges the order of conviction under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A of IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on him by the Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.C. No. 34 of 1996 (S.C. No. 234 of 1996 G.D.C.).3. Prosecution case, in short, is that appellant is the husband of the deceased, Gita, who, at the age of 21 years, Le., about 4 years after her marriage, died on 13.1.1996. According to the post mortem report Ext. 12 and the evidence of the doctor P.W. 12 there was no mark of violence, i.e., external injuries on the body of the deceased, but she died due to Asphyxia caused by throttling and not by infliction of any injury with the help of M.0.1, Phunkanala (blowing pipe). According to P.W. 12, the deceased suffered a homicidal death. The parents of the deceased got the message of death of the deceased from P.W. 4 and arrived at the house of the accused. On seeing them accused admitted to have committed the crim...
Sarat Chandra Nayak Vs. Damodar Patel and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT491; 2006(II)OLR827
A.K. Parichha, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sambalpur in T.A. No. 8/22 of 1996-97 allowing the said appeal in part and modifying the judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kuchinda in title Suit No. 39 of 1990. The appellant as plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the Schedule 'A' land (in short, 'the suit land'), recovery of possession of that land and permanent injunction against the defendants, with an alternative prayer for recovery of possession of Schedule 'B' land and compensation of Rs. 6,000/- towards cost of the boundry wall constructed on three sides the suit land.2. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that more than 35 years ago he took the suit land from the defendant No. 2 and in exchange gave him his land in Schedule 'B' and put a boundary wall around the suit land and Plot No. 423 on which he had his rice hauler and ho...
Tarapada Ray, Chapalika Dash, Asutosh Dash and Mohit Das Vs. State of ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR787
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. These writ petitions are heard together as the factual position as also the legal problems are similar. As such, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The subject matter of challenge in all these writ petitions is an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as 'RDC') which is a communication dated 9.5.2002. By the said communication, RDC as per the order passed in OGLS Misc Case No. 1 of 2002 cancelled the lease of Government land in Mouza Basuaghai granted in favour of Bhubaneswar Development Authority, opposite party No. 5 (hereinafter called 'BDA'). Purpoted reasons for cancellation of the lease deed is that RDC is not satisfied with the reply to the sho cause given by the Secretary, BDA, as such RDC desired that the land may be resumed by initiating resumption proceedings and necessary action may be taken for initiation of such proceedings.3. It also appears that pursuant...
Ullash Chandra Sahoo Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC659; 2006(II)OLR517
M.M. Das, J.1. Pursuant to the order dated 17.8.2006, Shri P.C. Das, Advocate and Notary, Cuttack appears in person and files an affidavit. Shri R.C. Das, Advocate for opp. party Nos. 1 to 3 has also filed an affidavit in Court today. Shri P.C. Das has stated in the affidavit that on 14.8.2006, he was mentally disturbed due to some family disturbance and at 11.00 A.M. in the morning, Shri R.C. Das, Advocate came to him and asked him to endorse a signature in the counter affidavit. He has further stated that Shri R.C. Das often got many affidavits sworn to before him and on the relevant date, he (R.C.Das) requested him to endorse his signature in the counter affidavit to be filed in the writ application and stated that the affidavit has been brought by him Shri (R.C. Das) with due permission of the Court. He being convinced, on good faith, endorsed the said affidavit to have been sworn to by Shri Pradumnya Kumar Rout, Authorized Officer of opp. party No. 1. He has admitted that it was a...
Arjun Prusty Vs. Kailash Ch. Barik and 4 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR579
A.K. Samantaray, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the appellant (complainant) assails the order dated 14.8.1989 passed by the learned J.M.F.C, Khurda in I.C.C. Case No. 165 of 1987/T.R.Case No. 350 of 1987 acquitting all the respondents/accused persons of the charges under Sections 323/379 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.2. The appellant filed a complaint before the S.D.J.M., Khurda on 15.10.1987 alleging therein that on 14.10.1987 at 6 P.M. these respondents in furtherance of their common intention, entered into the God own house of the appellant situated at Bhusandapur Bazar and committed theft of two bundles of Napkins and 14 numbers of Sarees and Dhotis. On protest by the appellant, the respondents assaulted him by dealing pushes to his chest. The appellant as complainant in order to substantiate the charges examined 4 witnesses including himself and his son and the respondents examined one D.W. in their turn.3. I have gone through th...
Sri Kalikumar Das Vs. Sri Bhakta Charan Jena and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC221; 2006(II)OLR581
M.M. Das, J. 1. The petitioner in this application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has sought for cancellation of the bail granted by this Court to the opp. party No. 1 on 23.7.2004 in BLAPL No. 5319 of 2004.2. On the information of the petitioner, Bhograi P.S.Case No. 113 of 2003 corresponding to G.R.Case No. 309 of 2003 pending before the learned J.M.F.C, Jaleswar under Sections 498-A/304-B/302 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the opp. party No. 1 who is the husband of the deceased and daughter of the petitioner, namely, Sumita.3. After investigation was completed, a charge sheet was filed against the opp. party No. 1 under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC. During the course of the investigation, the opp. party No. 1 approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in BLAPL No. 5319 of 2004. Considering the facts of the case, at that stage of the investigation, this Court passed the order dated 2...
Sudhansubala Panda Vs. Makunda @ Makundadeba Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: i(2007)DMC295
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.1988 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Chatrapur in I.C.C. No. 6 of 1985 (T.R. No. 257 of 1988) acquitting the accused-respondents from the charges.2. Case of the appellant is that accused Makunda Panda married her in 1974 according to Hindu rites. Both of them lived as husband and wife till 1979 and during that period they were blessed with a child on 20.9.1976. Thereafter, misunderstanding developed between them and it is alleged by the complainant, that she was driven out from her matrimonial house some time in the year 1976 and she started living with her parents. It is further alleged by the complainant-appellant that her husband accused-Makunda married for the second time to one Chabirani on 3.2.1982 in village Hundata according to Hindu rites and customs. It is also alleged that other accused persons abetted the second marriage (sic). The complainant also alleged in the complaint that a son has been ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »