Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR872
ORDERL.K. Mishra, J.1. The petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No. 1633 of 2006 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak involving offence under Sections 468/417/409/506 of the Indian Penal Code (herein-after called the 'I.P.C.'). She was earlier granted interim bail for a period of two months by this Court. This order relates to her prayer for regular bail.2. Heard Sri Biplab Kumar Dash learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the question of bail.3. The petitioner is working as Asst. Manager, Customer Care in Balasore Mercantile Credit Co-operative Ltd., Bhadrak Branch (here-in-after called 'BMCC Ltd.'). Initially F.I.R. was lodged on 16.11.2006 by Shri S.N. Mahapatra, Chief Executive Secretary of BMCC Ltd. against Shri B.N. Padhy, Branch Manager alleging financial irregularities and misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 1.80 crores. During investigation involvement of some other persons including the present petitioner came to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR93
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. Both the criminal revisions arise out of the judgment and order dated 18.11.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Angul in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1995/219 of 1997. Therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned order, the appellate Court has convicted the petitioner Gouranga under Section 354 IPC and petitioner Ganeswar under Section 354/109 IPC and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month by modifying the judgment and order dated 01.02.1995 passed by the learned C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Angul in S.T. Case No. 23 of 1993/Trial No. 19 of 1994 convicting Gouranga under Sections 376/511 IPC and Ganeswar under Sections 376/511/109 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo R.I. for three years and six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo further R.I. for one month.2. Case of the prosecution is that P.W.7 lodged information stati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007(1)OLR233
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. Though this matter has been listed for admission, on the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.2. This revision is directed against the order dated 27.6.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Baripada in S.T. No. 8/152 of 2004 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 311, Cr.P.C. to recall the chemical examiner for cross-examination in connection with his report Ext.9.3. M/s. S. Nanda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that some clarification regarding the report of the chemical examiner, Ext. 9 is necessary for proper adjudication of the case and therefore, the order of rejection is not at all proper. In support of her contention, she cites the case of Kanu @ Chhabindra Dalei v. State of Orissa 2006 (11) OLR 169.4. Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State counter argues that the report of the chemical examiner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2010(I)OLR173
R.N. Biswal, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 5.3.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Cuttack in Election Appeal No. 10 of 2007 reversing the judgment in part passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Jajpur in Election Petition No. 5 of 2007.2. The opp. party was the election petitioner and the petitioner was the opp. party No. 1 in the election petition No. 5 of 2007 of the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jajpur. As per the case of election petitioner, he himself and four others contested the election to the office of Sarpanch of Anyasipur Gram Panchayat, reserved for O.B.C/ S.E.B.C. ladies. The election was held on 17.2.2007, wherein the opp. party No. 1 was declared elected. The election petition secured the 2nd highest votes in the fray. She filed the election petitioner under Section 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'G.P. Act') on the ground that name of o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2010(I)OLR177
S.K. Mishra, J.1. On consent of learned Counsel for both the parties, the criminal revisions are taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.2. In these Criminal Revisions, petitioners assail the orders passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar on 25.08.2006 in I.C.C. No. 901 of 2006 and in I.C.C. No. 902 of 2006, whereby he rejected the petition filed by the complainant to condone the delay in filing the complain case under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Limitation Act', read with Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Brief fact of the case of the complainant-petitioner is that Orissa Rural Housing and Development Corporation Ltd. had advanced the house-building loan to the accused-opposite party. There was an outstanding dues against the accused, for which he issued two account payee cheques of Rs. 9,40,000/- each, on 28.10.2005 in favour of the complainant-Company drawn on Bank of Baro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT478
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. Heard.The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in rev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008CriLJ1315
S.C. Parija, J.1. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. assailing the order dated 19-6-2003 passed by the Asstt. Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, in S.T. No. 57/154/2000, wherein the learned trial Court by invoking its power under Section 311, Cr. P.C. has directed summoning of witnesses to be examined as Court witness.2. The main plea of Sri S. P. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that when the witnesses for both the prosecution and defence had already been examined and the hearing had been closed and the matter had been posted for judgment, it was not open for the trial Court to resort to Section 311, Cr. P.C. for summoning witnesses to be examined as Court witness. It is further plea of the petitioner that such invocation of power under Section 311, Cr. P.C. to summon the remaining witnesses at the time of preparation of the judgment, only after noting certain lacuna in the prosecution case, is improper and illegal, as the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR584]; (2008)IILLJ279Ori
Indrajit Mohanty, J.1. Heard S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Orissa Olympic Association and P.P. Ray, learned Counsel for Employees' State Insurance Corporation.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner-Association is a registered society in the name and style Orissa Olympic Association. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging Annexure-4, which is an intimation initiating a certificate proceeding. Further prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the State to consider its application for granting exemption from the purview of the coverage of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Application for the said purpose has been submitted by the petitioner since February, 2005.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned certificate proceeding under Annexure-4 is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, no certificate proceeding should have been initiated without first d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT790
A.S. Naidu, J.1. A peculiar question is canvassed in this Writ Petition. According to the Petitioners, the Trial Court while marking some of their documents as 'Exhibits' in course of evidence, did so '(With Objection)'. A petition filed by the Petitioners to delete the words '(With Objection)' having been rejected by the Trial Court, the Petitioners filed an appeal before the appropriate Court and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.2. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that documents in question which were exhibited being public documents, marking the same as Exhibits (With Objection) reveals complete non-application of mind of the Court below and therefore the words '(with objection)' may be directed to be deleted. This being the only question raised, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition at the admission stage itself.3. In course of evidence if a document is tendered by a witness and objection is raised to mark the same as an 'Exhibit' by the contesting ...
Tag this Judgment!