Court : Orissa
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7431 of 2011 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ---------Ritima Dehuri W/o Late Udayanath Dehuri At/PO- Kanknamendhi P.S. Banigocha, Daspala, Dist: Nayagarh Petitioner -VrsState of Orissa and others For Petitioner ... : For Opp. Parties : Opp. parties M/s M.M.Pattnaik, D.P.Mohapatra, A.K.Sahu & P.Das Government Advocate ----------- P R E S E N T: THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. MAHAPATRA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Judgment:14. 03.2012 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B.N. MAHAPATRA, J.Petitioner, the mother of late Nalita Kumar Dehuri, who was arrested, detained and died in police custody, files this writ petition seeking for a direction to opposite parties to initiate a criminal proceeding against the erring police officers and for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori67
Ray, C.J.1. The four cases, mentioned above, arising out of as many petitions, were some of the pending cases in respect of which the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court ceased from the 26th July, under Orissa High Court Constitution Order. They have since been transferred to this Court, and heard analogously, as the points for decision are common to all and will be governed by this order.2. Criminal Misc. 2/48 has been filed by one Saradhakar Naik of Bamra State, seeking interference of this Court, in the matter of illegal arrest and detention of one Jaydev Thakur of Bamra State and to order him to be set at liberty.3. Similarly, Cr Misc. nOS. 3, 4 and 5 of 1948 arise out of petitions filed, respectively, by Jayadev Naik of Bamra, Rual Naik and Pravakar Das of Kalahandi, in relation to the arrests and detentions of Batnakar Patra of Bamra, Nilakanth Patnaik and Lingaraj Daa of Kalahandi. In all the petitions, the legality of arrests and detentions of the prisoners has been challenged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori89
Ray, C.J.1. The subject-matter of this order is a petition by the petitioners in Cr. Misc. Cases NOS. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 1948, for a certificate under Sub-section (i) of Section 205, Government of India Act, 1935, as adapted.2. The question is not free from difficulty. It is due to an anomalous position arising out of the fact that the cases arise out of certain criminal proceedings, started against the petitioners, under laws extended to the areas of Bamra and Kalahandi States,--not being parts of the Province of Orissa--by the Government of Orissa, in exercise of a jurisdiction delegated to them by the Government of Indian Dominion under Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act. The questions that call for solution are :'(a) Whether the Federal Court of India has jurisdiction in the areas in which the oases arose ; and (b) Whether the order of this Court, in relation to the States area, is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court.' 3. The Federal Court has been re-establish...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori284
Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of acquittal recorded by Rai BahadurCharu Chandra Coari, Ses. J. Cuttack, in Cri. App. No. 70-C of 1947, reversing the order of conviction passed by the Sub-Divisional Mag. Jaipur, in the case of Emperor v. Tustipada Mandal & 5 others, under Schedule 0, Orissa Essential Articles Control & Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act (I [l] of 1947).2. The reaps, six in number, belong to the dist. of Burdwan in the Province of Bengal. They were prosecuted for attempting to transport 21 bullocks from the Province of Orissa in contravention of cl. 3, Orisaa Livestock (Control of Movement & Transactions) Order 1917, made & promulgated in exercise of the powers conferred by Schedule , Orissa Essential Articles Control & Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act 1947, in supersession of all existing orders on the subject, by the Govt. of Orissa. On 2-6-1947, the resps. were found passing through Dharmasala (in the dist. of Cuttaek) en-route Bhadrak w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1950CriLJ72
Ray, C.J.1. The appellants have been convicted of murder and sentenced to transportation for life. The deceased Godra Jani is to oar tain extent a relation of the appellants having married their mother, the first informant, after she was divorced by their father, Dalima Praja, who, it is said, is still alive. It is Bug. gested by the prosecution that the appellants felt aggrieved that the deceased Godra Jani had kept their mother as a wife. Besides there were oertain other reasons, suoh as, Godra Jani having practised witchcraft and having thereby killed one of the brothers of the appellants which caused oertain animosity against him. On the date of occurrence (8th July 1946), the appellants, Godra Jani, P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 and several other persons about 10 to 20 in number had gone to cremate the dead body of one Biting Kondhuni, appellants' father's elder sister The cremation was over some time in the morning. As customary, the entire party proceeded to a liquor shop for hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori281
Ray, C.J.1. The petnr. P. Venkata Rao, has been convicted Under Section 161, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months & to a fine of Rs. 500 & in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The complainant, Radhamohan Subudhi (p. w. 8), is a small trader in Dry Fish. He has certain other co sharers & co-partners in the buainess besides his neighbours & villagers, who also trade in the self-same commodities. It is said that on 19-11-1946, he & one Brabmaohari approached the petnr. (who was then the Station Master of Kalupara Railway Station) to settle with him as to what would be the rate per bag of Dried Pish to be paid to him, as inducement or reward, for indenting a waggon for transporting the Dried Fish from Kalupara Rly. Station to various other stations. Their case was that priviously the Station Master had been receiving Rs. 3 per bag but, of late, was making a higher demand. The prosecution story goes on to say that after some hig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori327
Jagannadhadas, J.1. Defendants 1 to 15 are the applta. in this second appeal. The pltf. is the Tikayet of Kanika, The defta. are the Bahar realdents of the Mouza called Chandrasekhacpur. The suit has been brought for an injunction restraining the defts. from entering into a forest belonging to the pltf. which may for convenience be called Patia forest & from cutting & appropriating any of the jungle produce therein. The trial Ct. dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate Ct. reversed it & granted the injunction & damages asked or by the pltf.2. Killa Patia in which the suit forest is a situated belong to Raja Dibyasingh Deb. On his death his brother Raghunath Deb succeeded to the Estate & on his death Maddan Mohan Dab. There was litigation relating to succession of the property between Mad'n Mohan & A .chyutananda. During the pondency of the litigation Mad an Mohan died & Achyutcanarda succeeded to the property. The estate was sold inexecution of a mtge. decree. during Achyutananda's...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori277
ORDERPanigrahi, J.1. The petnr. was served with a notice under Schedule 12, Cr. P. C., to show cause why he should not be directed to execute a bond to be of good behaviour under Schedule 10, Cr. P. C. for a period of three years. Along with the petnr. two other persons were also impleaded & served with similar notices & an enquiry M. c. No. 647/47 was started against the three persons by the Sub-divisional Mag., Ghumusur. The Police filed a report under Section 110 (d), (e) & (f), Cr. P. C. against these three persons on 24-9-47 & cited 84 instances of acts of misbehaviour & offences alleged to have been committed or threatened to have been committed by one or the other of the persons named in the report covering a period of over twelve years commencing from 1935. The Police also cited 140 witnesses to be examined to prove the various acts of high-handedness alleged to have been committed at different times by these persons. The Mag. drew up proceedings on the 4th November in the foll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori88
Panigrahi, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge Outtack. The respondent Hari Baisakh was charged with an offence under Sections 7/17 of Act xxiv [24] of 1946. of having attempted to remove 42 lbs of handloom cloth beyond the limits of the Orisaa Province on 7th August 1948. The accused was found boarding the 5 Dn. Train at Cuttack on 7th August 1943 earring 42 1bs handloom cloth. P. W. 1 the Anti-Smuggling S. I. ascertained that the accused had no permit to transport the cloth from Orisaa to Bengal. By a Notification No. 16100 ST dated 3rd June 1946 of the Government of Orissa the transport of handloom cloth without a permit from the Supply Department, beyond the limits of the province, is made punishable. The accused was therefore charged with having committed an offence in having contravened this Notification and was therefore punishable under Section 7 of Act XXIV of 1946. P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 merely prove that the accused had a ticket fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori245
ORDERRay, C.J. 1. The petition is by the complainant. He feels aggrieved by the order of the trying Magistrate (Shri S. S. Roy) refusing to examine some more witnesses for the prosecution at the stage of the trial where Section 256, Criminal P. C., came into operation. 2. The facts are that after a long and chequered career, the criminal case started by the petitioner, came to the file of Sri S. S. Roy for disposal. On the date, he received the file, he asked the complainant (petitioner) to produce his witnesses on the following date, on the said date, that is 19th August 1948, the complainant could not be present in Court and an application for excusing his absence was filed. At his instance, the case was adjourned, but the complainant was required to file a list of witnesses within two days. Thereupon, three witnesses were summoned for the prosecution and were present in Court on the next date. They were examined and (partially) cross-examined before the charge was framed. After char...
Tag this Judgment!