Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-23-1998
Reported in : 88(1999)CLT335; 1999CriLJ1701; 1999(I)OLR365
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted Under Sections 27(d) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months under the former charge and rigorous imprisonment for two others under the latter charge. Both . the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The said order of conviction and sentence having been confirmed by the appellate Court, the present revision has been filed.2. The prosecution case is as follows :The accused is the Proprietor of M/s.. Das Ausadhalaya, a medicine shop in village Indupur. On 8.8.1988, the Drugs Inspector (P.W. 1) along with the Assistant Drugs Controller (P.W.3) raided and searched the medicine shop of the accused who was not present at the time of search. The shop was being managed by the salesman (P.W. 2). In course of search, it was found that the accused...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-16-1998
Reported in : 87(1999)CLT855; 1999(I)OLR221
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The first party members in a proceeding Under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. are in the petitioners, challenging the revisiona! order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack remanding the matter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cuttack for an enquiry Under Section 137, Cr.P.C.2. A proceeding Under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at the instance of the first party-petitioner. The claim of the first party was that the disputed plot No. 1529 even though has been recorded in the name of the second party members in the Consolidation record of rights, it is a road corresponding to plot No. 1332. It is further alleged that during the consolidation operation, there was exchange of plots between the first party and the second party members and in pursuance of that exchange, it was agreed that the first party would use the disputed plot as road. Dispute having arisen FIR was lodged and also a proceeding Under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-08-1998
Reported in : 87(1999)CLT58; 1999(I)OLR359
A. Pasayat, J.1. Taking serious view of the conduct displayed by the opposite parties and doubting correctness of the orders passed by some learned Judges permitting surrender before the learned Sessions Judge directly without first surrendering before learned Magistrate notwithstanding decision of this Court in Smt. Basant Sahu v. Padma Charan Sahu and Ors. 1991 (I) OLR 133, reference has been made to the Division Bench by a learned Judge of this Court while dealing with prayer for cancellation of bail granted to opposite parties.A detailed reference to the factual aspects is necessary, in view of the fact that the conduct of opposite parties has been characterised to be obnoxious and an abuse of process of law. Criminal Misc. Case No. 3703 of 1995 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') was filed by opposite party No. 3 Chittaranjan Mishra (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused Chitta'). The matter was taken up on 28.12.1995, and was adjourn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-27-1998
Reported in : 1999(I)OLR313
A. Pasayat, J.1. An affidavit filed by Shri Arniya Bhusan Tripathy, an ex-Director-General of Police, Orissa has generated a lot of heat, as is evident from the present misc. case. The affidavit has been filed in OJC No. 9929 of 1997, which was filed by Mrs. Anjana Mishra making certain allegations against Shri Indrajit Ray, the ex- Advocate General, who at the relevant point of time was functioning as Advocate General. The case was taken up along with OJC Nos. 9788, 9801, 9806 and 9862 of 1997. Considering certain unusual features which were noticed by this Court, investigation of the criminal case registered on the basis of first-information-report lodged by Mrs. Anjana Mishra was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, 'CBI'). OJC No. 9929 of 1997 was disposed of along with OJC Nos. 9413, 9788, 9801, 9806 and 10039 of 1997 by a common judgment dated 8.8.1 997. Subsequently grievance was made that Shri Amiya Bhusan Tripathy was not examined in a case referred to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-09-1998
Reported in : 1999(I)OLR105
P.K. Misra, J.1. The opposite party filed Money Suit No. 31 of 1985 against the present petitioners for realisation of Rs. 15,15,915.84 paise. During the pendency of the suit, the opposite party filed an application seeking permission of the Court to sell away the raw materials and machineries of the petitioners' industry which had been given by way of pledge to the Bank. The said application was rejected. Civil Revision No. 805 of 1987 filed by the plaintiff against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 11.7.1990. Therefore, the suit was decreed ex parte on 13.3.1994 and the defendant-petitioners were directed to pay up the decretal amount within three months failing which the plaintiff was permitted to realise the amount through process of law. Thereafter, the present petitioners filed Misc. Case No. 127 of 1994 under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.P.C.') to set aside the ex parte decree and the said pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-06-1998
Reported in : 1999CriLJ969; 1999(I)OLR71
A. Pasayat, J.1. In the Persian tragic epic of Sohrab and Rustom father killed the son without knowing the identity. In the case at hand, a young boy of ten has met homicidal death. Prasant Kumar Sahu, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'), father of the deceased is said to be the perpetrator of the crime. The unfortunate deceased was living with his mother, brother and sister in their maternal grand- father's house. Accused married Janaki (P.W. 3) sometime in 1981. There were frequent quarrels between the accused and his wife, which forced latter to leave her husband's house, and stay in the matrimonial home with the children for about four years preceding the date of occurrence, i.e., on 29.9.1991. Law was set into motion by Alekh Chandra Sahu (P.W.2) father-in-law of the accused alleging that on the date of incident at about 11 a.m. the deceased went out from his house and did not return till 4 p.m. Sankar Behera and two others came and reported to him that someon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-06-1998
Reported in : 1999CriLJ1258
S.N. Phukam, C.J.1. This Jail Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9-12-1993 passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in Sessions Case No. 22/1993 (S.C. No. 126/1993).2. The accused-appellant alias Bijay was booked for trial under Section 302, I.P.C. for committing murder of Krushna alias Satrughan Sahu. He was found guilty under the above section and convicted accordingly and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased and the accused being co-villagers were engaged in the business of labour contract in the State of Manipur. On 3-5-1985, the deceased had returned to his village, 10/15 days prior to the date of occurrence, the accused had also come back to the village. It is alleged that on 5-5-1985 at about 7 a.m., accused came to the house of deceased, called him and both of them went to village tea-stall for taking tea with one Laxman Sahu, (not examined). All the three person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-05-1998
Reported in : 1999(I)OLR115
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Informant in G.R.Case No. 330 of 1997 of the Court of the S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur arising out of Jagatsinghpur P.S.Case No. 128 of 1997 registered Under Section 302/34, I.P.C., has filed this application Under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') praying for cancellation of the bail granted in favour of opposite party No. 1 Bibhu alias Braja Kishore alias Bibhuti Bhusan Swain.2. Notice was served on the opposite party No. 1 personally, on 2.5.1998 with a direction to file show-cause by 17.6.1998. By the date of service of the notice, opp. party No. 1 was in jail custody in accordance with the order passed by the S.D.M. in Crl. Misc. Case No. 66/98 Under Section 110 of the Code. However, it appears from the said case record that as per the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Criminal Revision No. 18/98, opposite party No. 1 was released from the jail custody on 14.5.1998. Therefore, in spite of service of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-05-1998
Reported in : 87(1999)CLT74; 1999CriLJ1207
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. The daughter and the grandson of the deceased Judhistir Das have filed this application under Section 439(2), Cr.P.C. with a prayer for cancellation of the bail granted in favour of opposite party No. I, Fakir Gouda, who is an accused in M. Rampur, P. S. Case No. 70/97. The offence alleged against opposite party No. 1 and co-accused is under Section 302/34, IPC.2. Petitioners have alleged that in spite of existence of a prima facie case against opp. party No. 1 learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nawapara at Shawanipatna, without due consideration of the materials available in the case diary and on recording wrong findings that no prima-facie evidence was available against opp. party No. I, allowed him to go on bail. They have further stated that after being released on bail; opp. party No. 1 on 23-10-97 threatened the petitioners as well as the witnesses to terrorise them so as to not to depose against him.3. No show cause was filed by opp. party No. I though he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-29-1998
Reported in : 1999(I)OLR85
P.K. Misra, J.1. The members of second party in a proceeding Under Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure, have filed this revision challenging the legality of the order dated 26th November, 1997, making the conditional order dated 14.10.1997 absolute and thereby directing the second party members to remove the trees standing on the disputed land.2. It is not necessary to notice in detail the facts. Suffice if to say that after a notice Under Section 133(1), Cr. P.C. was served on the present petitioners, a written statement was filed denying the allegations made in the petition of the first party on the basis of which the proceeding Under Section 133, Cr. P.C. had been started. The scheme of the provisions contained in Part-B of the Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that after making a conditional order Under Section 133(1), the said order may be served on the person against whom it is made. Sec. 135 envisages that the person against whom such order is made shall ...
Tag this Judgment!