Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1953Ori281; 19(1953)CLT330
Narasimham, J.1. This is a revision petition against an order dated 8-2-52 passed by Mlv. S. Ali, a 1st Class Magistrate of Cuttack, in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P. C. The petitioners were the second party in that proceeding, the opposite party being the first party. The proceeding was initiated by the Subdivisional Magistrate on 11-1-50 on the basis of a police report and the usual notices to both parties were directed to issue. On 15-3-50 both parties appeared before the Court and the first party filed their written statement on the same date whereas the second party filed their written statement on 6-4-50. The case was then transferred to the file of Sri N. N. Mitra, Magistrate 1st Class for disposal. After some adjournments the case was fixed for hearing on 10-3-51 on which date the first party were absent. The learned Magistrate then passed the following order :'10-3-51. The 1st party is absent. There is no hazira. No lawyer appears. There is no response in spite of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 95(2003)CLT521; 2003(I)OLR51
B. Panigrahi, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs are in appeal against the dismissal of their suit for declaration of their title and possession. In order to appreciate the respective contention of both parties we, however, find it appropriate to quote the admitted genealogy placed in the record :GENEALOGYRama Barik_________________|_______________| |Aparti Noki___________|___________ || | HaguruKhetri(daughter) Dinabandhu || ______|_________ KrushnaChaturbhuja | | _____|__________________________| Sankari Muturi | | |Gunmani (1st wife) (2nd wife) Indra Surendra Narendra(D.7) = (D.1) (D.2)Chandmani |(D.5) || |Gopinath || | Chandrabat(D.6) |____________________|_______________| |Kanhei Danei(D.3) (D.4) Undisputedly Aparti was the owner of the disputed property in which the plaintiff-appellants have claimed title on the basis of purchase from Chaturbhuja, who succeeded Sankari, the last owner whereas the defendant No. 1 claimed to have acquired title by adverse possession immediately afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2902; 2005(I)OLR234
B.P. Das, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C') with a prayer to quash the proceeding in I.C.C. No. 237 of 2003 pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panposh at Uditnagar as well as the order passed therein taking cognizance against the petitioner of the offence under Sections 294/423/506/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' in short).2. The brief facts giving rise to the present application, as have been stated in the complaint petition, are as follows :O.P. No. 2-Prafulla Kumar Mishra, an advocate of Rourkela Bar, filed the aforesaid complaint case impleading the present petitioner-Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani, the Chairman of Reliance Infocomm, as accused No. 1, and two others, namely, Rajesh Hirwe, the Manager of Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Rourkela, and V.K. Gupta, the owner of M/s. Balajee Agencies (Telecom Division), Rourkela, as accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively who are not parties to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : II(1990)DMC435
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The short question that arises for determination in this case is whether in a proceeding under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate has the power to permit the applicant to amend the application filed under the section seeking maintenance.2. In this petition filed under Sections 399, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed to quash the order passed by the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar on 23-10-1989 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 38 of 1988 rejecting her petition to amend the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C.3. The petitioner claiming to be the wife of the opp. party filed the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar for maintenance from the opp. party which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 37 of 1988. During pendency of the case she filed the petition purportedly under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. praying to make certain amendment in the application filed under Section 125, Cr.P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori138
Panigrahi, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Orissa Against an order of acquittal recorded by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, in a case arising under Schedule 88 Penal Code.2. The case for the prosecution is that the accused Oriya Sama Majhi disobeyed an order under Schedule 44 criminal P. C. promulgated on 5-2-49, in the Bamangati Subdivision of Mayurbhanj District, prohibiting the residents there in from carrying bows and arrows or any deadly weapons. It is alleged that the accused was moving about on 31-3-49 in his village, Maranda, with a bow, arrows, and a sword shouting that he would kill his enemies with, these weapons. The order under Schedule 44 was duly promulgated on 5-2-49, and it is proved that the accused had knowledge of the ban imposed under this order. The trying magistrate recorded a finding that the accused intentionally disobeyed the order and that the disobedience caused danger to human life and safety.He accordingly convicted the accused of an offence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1998CriLJ3050
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for one month. The appeal by the petitioner having been dismissed, the present revision has been filed.2. There is no dispute that the petitioner had married P.W. 3 on 17-5-1986. It is alleged by the prosecution that the wife (P.W. 3) was being harassed from time to time for non-fulfilment of demand for dowry. The petitioner and three others were charged under Sections 498A, 495 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6A of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the petitioner alone was convicted under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code and all others were acquitted by the trial Court.3. When the revision came up for admission on 28-10-1996, an order was passed admitting the revision on the question of sentence. In spite of the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has ve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2005(II)OLR793
A.K. Samantaray, J.1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3415
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. The legal heirs of late Somanath Das who was an accused in T.R. Case No. 10 of 1996 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur have filed this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21-12-1994 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for release of the properties attached.2. As it appears from the record late Somanath Das was in Government service and while posted at Sohela his quarter was searched on the allegation that he had acquired properties dis-proportionate to his known sources of income. During such search, the Vigilance Department seized movable properties which include cash, ornaments and bank deposits. A case was registered against late Somanath Das for commission of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act which ultimately gave rise to T.R. Case No. 10 of 1986 in the Court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur. While the matter wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2004(I)OLR188
ORDER1. This matter was listed today under the heading 'To be mentioned'.2. This Criminal Revision was also referred to us along with Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2003 by the learned Single Judge on point as to whether the Magistrate in some cases can release any property seized for an offence under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We have delivered a separate judgment today in Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2003 (Soubhagya Kumar Panda v. State of Orissa)* answering the aforesaid question of law.3. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment delivered today in Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2003 are quoted herein below :'6. The relevant portions of Sections 66, 67, 68, 70 and 85 of the Act are quoted herein below :66. What things are liable to confiscation: - (1) Whenever an offence has been committed which is punishable under this Act, the intoxicant, materials, still, utensil, implement and apparatus in respect of or by means of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 92(2001)CLT568; 2001CriLJ2449
B.P. Das, J.1. The petitioner by way of public interest litigation had initially filed a writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayers of following nature :(a) To cancel the appointment of Sri Indrajeet Ray as Advocate-General of Orissa and also Special Public Prosecutor for the Vigilance cases as per Annexure-1; (b) To appoint suitable alternative counsel to conduct the cases for the prosecution of the aforesaid vigilance cases vide Annexure-1 at the cost of the State ; (c) To direct fresh trial of T. R. Case No. 55/92 or in the alternative, direct for suo motu institution of an appeal against acquittal in T. R. Case No. 55/92 vide Aunexure-2; (d) To direct the State Bar Council to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against Sri Indrajeet Ray for his misconduct as an Advocate ; and (e) To declare Sti Indrajeet Ray, Advocate-General to be unworthy of holding the highly constitutional post of Advocate-General and direct the State Government an...
Tag this Judgment!