Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007(1)OLR150
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Though this matter was listed for orders, but this being a writ petition of the year, 1998, with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate on behalf of the State and the learned Counsel appearing for the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation.3. On perusal of the record, it is seen that by order dated 13.7.1998 passed in Misc. Case No. 7984 of 1998, this Court while considering the said misc. case petition for interim orders directed as follows:We direct the Director, Social Welfare that an inquiry be made and after proper verification regarding such victims now residing at Mallisahi, Bhubaneswar on encroached land it shall be ensured that such victim persons shall not be evicted without proper rehabilitation. But this order shall not apply to other person residing in that area. 4. This writ application has been filed by an NGO taking up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR116
1. Heard and the judgment is as follows:Accused faced trial for the offence under Section 302 IPC on the allegation of committing murder of his wife by severing her head on the suspicion of practising witchcraft. The occurrence took place on 29.10.1994. At about 2.30 P.M. on that day accused was found moving towards the police station with the severed head of his wife and a bloodstained axe. On the way he made extra judicial confession before the witnesses and thereafter in the police station deposited the head and the axe. The aforesaid aspect put the Investigating Officer into action and thereafter without probing much he completed the investigation citing few people as witnesses to the occurrence and few to prove extra judicial confession. The seized weapon and' the blood stained wearing apparels of the accused together with the blood stained apparels of the deceased were sent for chemical analysis and the confirming report-Exts. 10 and 11 was received from the Science Laboratory. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR133
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.2. An information was lodged by one Bidyadhar Barik in the Korai Police Station on 19.6.2007, inter alia, stating that the daughter of the informant got married to the petitioner in the year 2003 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, the informant gave the couple a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash, gold ornaments and some house hold articles. But that was not in compliance with the demand of groom's family. A son was born out of the wedlock. After the birth of the child, the daughter of the informant suffered from T.B. She was left in the informant's house and the informant was getting her treated and giving her medicine as advised by the doctor. On 18.6.2007, the daughter of the informant while ill, expired.3. The informant in the F.I.R. made a prayer to the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station to hand over the dead body ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT98
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. Challenge in this revision is to the Order Dated 17.05.2007 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. No. 2855 of 2005 partly allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by confining the further cross-examination to certain questionnaire, thereby disallowing the rest of the questionnaire.2. Brief facts of the case are that Opposite Party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Opposite Party') filed a complaint case against the Petitioner and the proforma Opposite Parties in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, which was registered as I.C.C. Case No. 2855 of 2005. In the said case, the complainant examined himself and three others as witnesses. The Petitioner filed a petition on 05.03.2007 to recall the complainant for further cross-examination, which was allowed subject to cost of Rs. 2000 /-.On 24.07.2007, the Petitioner paid the cost to the complainant and filed a further petition to allow him to put some additional questions to the complainant. But...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 104(2007)CLT273; 2007(1)OLR790
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Government Advocate.2. The dispute involves in this writ petition is that the petitioners were settled with Ac. 1.00 of land each from out of the lands found as ceiling surplus under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 in mouza Bidanasi, Sadar Cuttack by virtue of orders passed on their respective applications. However, the said lands along with other lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by publication of notices under Sections 4 and 6 thereof. Appeals and revisions were filed against the orders by which the petitioners were settled with the said lands. Ultimately, the petitioners preferred various writ petitions individually before this Court and upon the writ petitions being allowed, the State of Orissa moved the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals against the orders passed in the writ petitions. The Supreme Court by its order dated 31.7.2003 allowed the Civil Appeals directing to take up the proceed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008CriLJ655
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In this revision, the petitioners challenge the order dated 6-1-2007 passed by the SDJM, Bhadrak taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 436/34, IPC against them in ICC Case No. 104 of 2006 instituted by opposite party No. 2.2. The allegation of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 is that while he was constructing the boundary wall between his house and that of the petitioners, the petitioners being armed with deadly weapons came and assaulted him. They also assaulted his family members and the labourers engaged for the purpose. Thereafter, the petitioners tried to set fire to the thatched roof of the complainant by pouring kerosene, but the same was extinguished with the help of the fire brigade. It is alleged that on account of such setting of fire, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 5000/-. The learned SDJM as it appears from the impugned order, perused the complaint petition, initial statement of the complainant, statements of the witnesses recorde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007CriLJ3596
1. This Jail Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5th August, 1999 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Sessions Case No. 1 /98/SC No. 322/97 (GDC) convicting the appellants for commission of offence under Sections 302/307/34, IPC.2. As per the prosecution case, on 2-8-1997 accused-appellants cut the ridge of the agricultural land of the informant, for which there was altercations between the informant group and the accused persons. Due to intervention of village 'Bhadralokas' accused persons left the place and went to their houses. Sometimes thereafter the informant Jogi Naik came out of his house by hearing shout in front of Hadu Naik's house and saw that Kesab was armed with a 'Farsa', Khadala armed with a sword and Hadu armed with a lathi. Bhikari (deceased) and Ishwar were lying down with profuse bleeding on the floor. Ulla Naik was trying to separate the accused persons. Bhikari sustained severe injury on his head. Ishwar also sustaine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003(I)OLR363
ORDER1. Heard counsel on all sides.2. In its order dated 6.4.2000, this Court observed :'2. It has been stated in the petition that unfair means are employed in mass scale in LL.B. examination conducted by the said University inasmuch as in the examination halls the examinees are allowed to take Allahabad Law Book series, Central Law Book series and other law books besides answer chits etc. and they use the same in the examination hall in presence of the invigilators. It further appears from the petition that the students whose attendance is virtually nil, they are allowed to appear in the examination. Further the complaint discloses that because of this, the students are looked down upon in the society as general stigma is attached that they are obtaining the Law Degree by employing unfair means in Law examinations.'This Court further observed :'5. It appears that in the State of Orissa law teaching is imparted in the five Universities, namely, Utkal University, Sambalpur University, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007(1)OLR224
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. This is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court for grant of bail. The petitioner had earlier moved before submission of charge sheet vide BLAPL No. 8599 of 2006 and by order dated 18.9.2006 the petition was rejected with liberty to the petitioner to move afresh after submission of charge sheet. Charge sheet was submitted on 19.10.2006 for commission of offences under Sections 302/120-B/34 of the Penal Code. The petitioner has moved this application again for grant of bail.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the informant. Perused the case diary.3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the informant was staying with her son Sridhar and was separated from her husband. Six months prior to the incident, she had gone to attend a religious function in her husband's house where she met the petitioner who is her brother-in-law. It is alleged that the marriage of the son of the informant having been fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 103(2007)CLT681; [2007(114)FLR382]
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In the present review petitions, the Petitioners pray tor review of the Judgment dated 13-04-2005 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 7902 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 9787 of 2003. By the said Judgment, both the Writ Petitions were disposed of, and by relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court Union of India v. Deep Chand Pandey : AIR1993SC382 and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India : [1997]228ITR725(SC) , it was held that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petitions. It was also observed that since the matters are pending before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, which is the Court of first instance having ample power and jurisdiction to effectively deal with the grievance of the employees, the Petitioners should pursue their remedy before the Tribunal.2. Mr. Bijan Ray, Learned senior advocate, appearing for the Petitioners contended that the plea of retrenchment is not pending before the Tribunal nor had the Petitioners been retrenched. He further c...
Tag this Judgment!