Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003(I)OLR324
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. This is habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the order of detention dated 10.10.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Nayagarh under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'Act, 1980)'.2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ application are that the petitioner had been arrested and was in intermediary judicial custody in Dasapalla Sub- jail in connection with Khandapara P.S. Case No. 123 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 326, 354, 307, 302, 109, 139, IPC/25/27 Arms Act and khandapara P.S. Case No. 63 dated 11.9.2002 under Sections 341, 294, 353, 506, 307, 34, IPC/25/27 Arms Act. While he was in custody, the impugned order of detention dated 10.10.2002 was passed by the District Magistrate, Nayagarh. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner by communication dated 10.10.2002 of the District Magistrate, Nayagarh. The Government of Orissa in Home Department...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003(I)OLR350
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. This is a habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the order of detention dated 9.5. 2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Kendrapara under Sub- section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act 1980').2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested in connection with Kendrapara P.S. Case No. 30 of 2002 on 6.2.2002. The offences alleged against the petitioner were under Sections 399/402, I.P.C./25 (A)/27 Arms Act. The petitioner was thereafter forwarded to the jail custody. While the petitioner was in jail custody in Choudwar Jail, the impugned order of detention was passed on 9.5.2002 by the District Magistrate, Kendrapara. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on 9.5.2002. The order of detention was approved by the State Government on 15.5.2002. The petitioner submitted representations against the said order on 16.6.2002. The repre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2006(II)OLR292
S. Barman Roy, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention dated 30.10.2005 issued by the District Magistrate, Ganjam, Chatrapur in respect of the petitioner under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') authorizing detention of the petitioner in the Central Jail, Berhampur so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. The impugned order of detention dated 30.10.2005 reads as under:OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GANJAM, CHATRAPUR.N.S.A. No. 7/2005.ORDERNo.993/Res. Dt. 30.10.2005Whereas I, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, IAS, District Magistrate, Ganjam have been directed in Government of Orissa, Home Department Order NO.8754/C Dt. 14.09.2005 to exercise the power conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980.Whereas I am satisfied that with a view to preventing Suduru @ Suda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009(II)OLR161
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation of the provisions of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1871 as also Section 14(5) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short 'the TADA') is involved in this appeal which arises out of a common order dated 6th March, 2007 passed by the Designated Court (TADA), Pune, in Application Exh. 1118 and 1227 in TSC No. 2/1996, 1/1997 and 2/1997.3. The said question arises in the following fact situation.One Suresh Narsinh Dube was shot dead at Nallasopara Railway Station in the suburbs of Mumbai on 9th October, 1989. The impleaded respondent herein, the brother of the deceased, filed a complaint petition with regard to the incident. Appellant absconded.A proclamation under Section 82 of the Code was thereafter issued on 9th February, 1993 declaring the appellant as a proclaimed offender. Subsequently, the said proclamation was also pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1998(II)OLR360
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner's election as a Councillor of Ward No. 28 of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (in short, the 'Corporation) having been declared null and void by the learned District Judge, Khurda (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in terms of Section 21 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (in short, the Act'),on the basis of an application under Section 19 of the Act, this writ application has been filed.2. Factual position as presented by the parties essentially is as follows : Both petitioner and opposite party No. 1 were contestants for the post of Councillor of Ward No. 28 in the election of the Corporation. Opp. party Nos. 2 to 6 were also candidates. Petitioner was declared elected by the Election Officer (opposite party No. 2) as she secured highest number of valid ballots. Her election was challenged by opposite party No. 1 by filing an election petition solely on the ground-that she was eligible to contest by filing nomination as she was a permanent inhabit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1995CriLJ1561; 1995(I)OLR151
A. Pasayat, J. 1. 'Rape or Raptus is when a man has carnal knowledge of a woman by force and against her will'' (Co. Litt. 123 b); or, as expressed more fully, 'rape is the carnal knowledge of any woman above the age of ten years, against her will; or of a woman child, under that age, with or against her will' (Hale P. C. 628). In India, as set out in Clause Five of Section 375 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') the age relating to consent is sixteen years, at present. Original age of ten has been substituted from time to time in 1891 and 1925 by twelve years, and fourteen years. Since 1943 it is sixteen years. The essential words in an indictment for rape are rapuit and carna-liter cognovit. Rape is no longer considered as sexual assault by a man on the victim. Its scar on account of physical action may be obliterated; but it lives in an indolent state of mind of the victim which is never healed. Here the victim whose name we do not propose to indicate, has suffered ignomity...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1996(II)OLR420
A. Pasayat, J.1. Legality of conviction for commission of offences punishable under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short, 'the Act') and under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short. 'IPC'), and sentences of rigorous imprisonment of three years on each count, imposed is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal by appellant Karunakar Pradhan (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused'), who was found guilty by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur and sentenced as aforesaid.2. Accusations which led to the trial and conviction of the accused essentially are as follows : Forest Department of the State collects Kendu leaves, and after processing and bundling, those are stored in the Central Godown. Thereafter they are handed over to the Orissa Forest Corporation (in short, 'the Corporation') which takes care of the same and puts them to auction. 115/5 lots were stored in Srirampur Central Godown out of whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2006(II)OLR620
M.M. Das, J.1. In this Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu challenges the order of detention dated 20.10.2005 issued by the District Magistrate, Ganjam, Chatrapur under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act') as illegal and unsustainable.2. The order of detention dated 20.10.2005 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 21.10.2005 when he was in custody in the Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with some police case along with grounds of detention. The petitioner-detenu was also informed that he has a right to file representation before the State Government, the Advisory Board and the Central Government under Section 14 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner-detenu made representation to the State Government which was rejected by it (State Government) by order dated 28.11.2005. The Central Government receiving the representation on 6.12.2005 rejected the same by its order dated 16.12.2005 and the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2005Ori125
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner, Orissa Power General Corporation Limited (for short, 'OPGC') is a Limited Company in which the State Government of Orissa holds 51 per cent of equity shares and AES Corporation, U. S. A. holds 49 per.cent of equity shares. OPGC carries on the business of generation of electricity from thermal energy at its Thermal Station called 'Ib thermal Station'. The opposite party No.2, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., (for short, 'Gridco') is a Government company and is engaged in the business of bulk purchase and supply and transmission of electricity in the State of Orissa. The Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1995 (for short, 'the Act, 1995') came into force with effect from 1-4-1996 and under the provisions of the Act, 1995 the opposite party No. 1, Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short, 'the Commission') was established for regulating the electricity sector in the State of Orissa. Thereafter, on 13-8-1996, a Power Purchase Agreement (for short,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003(I)OLR355
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 directing that the petitioner, who was in jail cus...
Tag this Judgment!