Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-11-1993
Reported in : 1994(I)OLR323
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. These appellants have appealed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1986 dated 24-2-1987. Each of the appellants was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years Under Section 376 IPC, 5 years Under Section 366 IPC and one year Under Section 506 IPC with a direction that all the sentences are to run concurrently.2. The facts of the prosecution case in short are as follows :On 25-2-1986 the prosecutrix Zarina Bagh had been to Footpad to attend the religious congregation of persons espousing Christianity. In the evening she along with one Bibilina Bagh came to the house of one Adam to get some gruel. While they were returning from the house of Adam to the place of their stay by the hospital road, the present appellants met them on the way and asked them from where they had come. The time then was 8. 30 p. m. in the evening. Raman, the present appellant No. 1 tried to drag Zarina to a place...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-05-1993
Reported in : 76(1993)CLT218; 1993CriLJ3604; 1993(I)OLR545
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The important point for determination in this case is whether previous sanction is necessary for prosecution of an M. L. A under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein- after 'the Act'). As this question is being examined by this Court (may be, by any High Court) for the first time after the Act had come into force, in which the definition of 'public servant'' as given in Section 2(c) of the Act is different from and wider than that given in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, which had come up for consideration by a Constitution Bench in R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay, : 1984CriLJ613 , in which it was held that an M. L. A. is not a public servant, detailed consideration of the matter is called for. In the background of very elaborate and well studied arguments advanced by Shri Rath in support of the petitioner's stand for whom he has appeared that such a sanction is necessary, which with ability has been controverted by Shri S. K. Das, learned Government A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-24-1993
Reported in : 78(1994)CLT187; 1994(I)OLR285
L. Rath, J.1. An order passed by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar recalling the process issued against the opposite party on a complaint Under Section 500 read with Section 34, IPC brought by the petitioner arraigning the opposite party as accused No, 3 is assailed in the present petition. The bare facts are that the complaint was filed alleging commission of offence by Shri Pritish Nandy, the Editor and Publisher of the Illustrated Weekly of India and Dr. Claude Alvares as also the present opposite party alleging that the petitioner was a Cabinet Minister of the Government of India since 23-4- 1989 and was Minister of Environment and Forest til! 2-4-1990. Two issues of the Illustrated Weekly of India were published for the period July 29-August 4, 1990 and August 26-September 1, 1990 respectively containing articles captioned,'A Hallow Mockery'' and 'The Real issues, Both the articles contained defamatory imputations and aspersions against the petitioner. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-02-1993
Reported in : 1994(I)OLR435
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The petitioner has assailed the vires of Section 5-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') as inserted by the Orissa Act 11 of 1990 which came into force on 1-7- 1990.2. Though a Bench of this Court had upheld the validity of the aforesaid section in O.J.C. No. 172 of 1992 (M/s. Sitania Enterprisers v. State of Orissa) decided on 13-7-1993, Shri Agrawal appearing for the petitioner contends that the point which he seeks to urge had not been canvassed in that O.J.C. We have, therefore, heard the learned counsel on the new point on the strength of which he seeks to assail the validity.3. Let us note the relevant part of the section at the threshold.'5-A (1) Every dealer whose gross turnover during any year exceeds rupees ten lakhs shall, in addition to the tax payable by him under this Act, also pay a surcharge at the rate of ten percentum of the total amount of the tax payable by him ;Provided that the aggregate of the tax and surcharge payable un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-28-1993
Reported in : 1993(44)ECC65; 1994(72)ELT538(Ori)
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company and petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of the company. They have filed this writ application to declare the amendment made on 1st of May, 1986, to the Notification No. 133/85-Customs, as well as the Notification No. 67/87-Cus-toms, dated 1-3-1987 to be constitutionally invalid being discriminatory in nature and have further prayed to quash the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Paradeep, dated 17th of August, 1987, annexed as Annexure-3, by which order the said Assistant Collector has cancelled the registration of the project contract/85-86. Under the Notification No. 133/85-Customs, dated 19th of April, 1985, which has been issued by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section (1) of the Section 25 of the Customs Act, an Explanation has been added and under the explanation the expression 'Powered Projects' shall mean,' ... such projects whose output of end-product is power, but shall n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-22-1993
Reported in : 1994(74)ELT802(Ori); [1993]203ITR729(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. This assortment of petitions raises an identical dispute, and are, therefore, disposed of by this common order. In each case, the notice issued under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), annexed as annexure-1 to the writ application is impugned. Notices relate to the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80.2. A brief reference to the fact situation as depicted by the petitioner in support of the writ applications is necessary. The petitioner is a public limited company and is assessed to income-tax. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence made a raid in the premises of the petitioner on and from March 24, 1988. A raid was also conducted on the residence-cum-office of its managing director, Dr. B.D. Panda. While the foreign exchange regulation authorities were in the premises and were conducting their search, they requested the income-tax authorities to come and conduct raid in terms of Section 132 of the Act. According to the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-27-1993
Reported in : 1993(II)OLR524
A. Pasayat, J.1. Order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Raghunathpur in a proceeding Under Section 9 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short, the 'Act') is primarily the subject-matter of challenge. Addition- ally it is submitted that the officers appointed under the Act to exercise various functions are not well equipped to deal with the complicated questions of fact and law, and therefore, the authorities who are expected to substitute the judicial officers trying suits in Civil Courts, by and large are deficient and as a result the administration of justice has become a casualty.2. Before we deal with the larger question relating to functioning of the officers appointed under the Act, it is necessary to deal with the main challenge.The fact situation is almost undisputed. Objection Case Mo. 3256/730 of 1989 was filed Under Section 9 (3) of the Act by 35 persons who are arraigned as opposite party Nos. 6 to 40 in this wr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-17-1993
Reported in : 1994(I)OLR375
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Dismissal of the suit for recovery of money on finding that the same is not maintainable is grievance of plaintiff in this appeal.2. Case of plaintiff is that he is the Managing Partner of a Firm. Defendant No. 1 is also a Firm with defendant Nos. 2 to 5 as its partners. Plaintiff is a merchant carrying on business of purchase and sale of goods including tobacco. Defendant No. 1 -Firm is a reputed tobacco merchant in Eastern India who carries on business on commission also. Defendant-firm entered into a contract to supply tobacco to plaintiff at its godown at Puri. Plaintiff has paid on various dates a sum of Rs. 88,300/- as detailed in the schedule to the plaints Defendants supplied tobacco worth Rs. 65,469.16 paise. After accounts were taken in respect of transactions between the parties, it was found that a sum of Rs. 22,842.84 paise is outstanding against defendants. Notice was sent for refund of the amount and the same having not been refunded,'suit has been f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-11-1993
Reported in : II(1994)ACC117; 1994ACJ138; AIR1994Ori65; [1994]80CompCas461(Orissa); 1994(I)OLR1
Hansaria, C.J. 1. These appeals by the insurer have raised the question of its liability to satisfy the awards which have been passed in proceedings under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter, 'the Act') claiming compensation for the death of three persons who were travelling in a goods vehicle, which had been hired by the deceased and who were travelling in the vehicle which got involved in an accident. When these appeals came before one of us (G. B. Patnaik, J.), reliance was placed on a bench decision of this Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Narayani Bai, 1984 Ace CJ 106 : (AIR 1984 Orissa 43) in which this question had been answered in affiramtive. This had been done following the decisions of Karnataka High Court in Channappa v. Laxman Bhimappa, AIR 1979 Karnataka 93; T. M. Renukappav. Fahmida, 1980 Acc CJ 86 : (AIR 1980 Karnataka 25) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gangamma, 1982 Acc CJ 357 : (AIR 1982 Karnataka 263). The l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-22-1993
Reported in : 76(1993)CLT361; 1993CriLJ2128; 1993(I)OLR456
L. Rath, J.1. The sole point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case is that the petitioner's conviction Under Section 27(3)(a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and sentence to simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month on the allegation of his having cut four Sal trees inside Jagannath Prasad reserved forest to be unwarranted since it was never proved that the forest in question was a reserved forest. The petitioner was alleged to have illegally cut the trees on 10-12-1985 and such fact having been proved, his conviction ensued. The conviction and sentence have also been confirmed in appeal.2. Section 27 (3) (a) of the Orissa Foresr Act provides that any person who, in a reserved forest, inter alia, fells any tree or plant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. For conviction under...
Tag this Judgment!