Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1956Ori194; 22(1956)CLT375; 1956CriLJ1334
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a petition for quashing a criminal case (C, C. No. 5 of 1955/T-64 of 1955) pending in the Court of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Balasore, against the three petitioners. Petitioners 1 and 2 were said to be the Managing Directors of a firm known as the Orissa Steel Corporation, with its office at Soro in the district of Balasore. Petitioner 3 was the Manager of the said firm. The prosecution case against the mwas that sometime in 1950 they, on their application, were allotted quotas of iron and steel by the Central Government in pursuance of Clause 4, Iron and Steel (Control of Production and Distribution) Order, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Order) for the purpose of using the same for fabricating finished goods at their factory at Soro.Subsequently in 1951 when the Orissa Iron and Steel Products (Control of Prices and Distribution) Order 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Orissa Order) came into force in the State of Orissa, they were also g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 22(1956)CLT475; 1957CriLJ286
ORDERNarasimham, C.J.1. This is a revision petition against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Cuttack maintaining the conviction and sentence passed by a First Class Magistrate of Kendrapara against the petitioner for an offence under Section 456 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The petitioner is a Matriculate, aged about 22 years, residing in village Kusunapur, P. S. Patkura. He was prosecuted in the Court of the 1st. Class Magistrate of Kendrapara on the allegation that he entered the dwelling house of one Domei Naik (P.W.I) of his village at about 3 A.M. on the 22nd March 1954 and committed theft of some utensils. Domei Naik woke up on hearing some noise, and claimed to have seen the petitioner with the stolen utensils. He challenged him and then the petitioner tried to conceal himself in the kitchen where there was a fight between him and Domei in the course of which both of them received injuries. The petitioner, however succeeded in running away from the place. On these ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1957Ori35
Mohapatra, J. 1. This first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 19-9-1949 of Sri K.S.R. Murty, 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge of Puri, arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of the lease-hold property by evicting the defendants therefrom as the lease stands determined and cancelled.The defendants are Messrs. National Chemical and Salt Works Limited (India), Calcutta. The original plaintiff was the ex-proprietor of Parikud, and the estate of Parikud having vested in the State of Orissa under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, the State of Orissa has been made co-appellant at the appellate stage.The defendants company had taken out a registered lease for a period of 40 years executed by the original plaintiff (the ex-proprietor of Parikud) on 12-2-1940. The lease was on an annual rental of Rs. 650/-. On the basis of the lease, the defendants obtained right to manufacture salt on the plots locally known as Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1957Ori39; 23(1957)CLT1; 1957CriLJ384
Narasimham, C.J. 1. The question referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court is: 'Whether a confession made to an Excise Officer exercising the powers of a Police Officer is a confession made to a Police Officer and is not admissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evi. Act.' The referring Bench noticed the conflict of decisions of the various High Courts on this question and thought that it should be definitely settled once for all, so far as this Court and the Courts subordinate to it are concerned. ' In is Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court reported in Radhakishun Marwari v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Pat 293 (SB) (A) it was held that an Excise Officer exercising powers under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act read with the Dangerous Drugs Act, was not a ''Police Officer' and that a confession made to him by an accused person was therefore admissible in evidence not being hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. There was an earlier Full Bench decision of the Bombay High ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1957Ori96
Narasimham, C.J. 1. The petitioner is the holder of a pre-settlement minor mam in Ganjam District and he has challenged the validity of Notification No. 4971-XV-2154-E. A, dated 15-7-1905 of the Government of Orissa issued under Section 3(1) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act I of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), vesting the said minor mam in the State of Orissa. The challenge is made on the ground that a pre-settlement minor inam does not come within the definition of the expression 'estate' as given in Section 2(g) of the Act and that consequently the Government of Orissa have no jurisdiction to issue a Notification under Section 3(1) of the Act in respect of this inam.2. The Act was introduced as a Bill in the Orissa Legislative Assembly on 17-1-1950 and was passed by the Assembly on 28-9-1951. The Governor of Orissa reserved it for the consideration of the President who gave his assent on 23-1-1952. Since then the Act has undergone several amendments, b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1957Ori121; 23(1957)CLT134
Narasimham, C.J.1. The petitioner is a private motor transport company which was formerly plying stage carriage vehicles on the Raj Athgarh-Narasinghpur route. The Regional Transport Authority, Cuttack, refused to renew its permit and granted the same to the State Transport Authority of Orissa, over the said route. These two petitions have been filed against this order and they are dealt with in one judgment.2. The facts which are either admitted, or are clear from the affidavits filed by the parties, may be shortly stated as follows:Eight permits of the petitioner for the aforesaid route were . renewed for a period of three years. The permits expired on the 30th September, 1956. On the 24th July, 1956 the petitioner made an application to the Regional Transport Authority, Cuttack, accompanied by the prescribed fee, for renewal of the permits for a further period of three years from 1st October; 1956 under Section 58 (2) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. On the 9th September, 1956, how...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1957Ori240; [1957]8STC749(Orissa)
Narasimham, C.J. 1. These are applications by Messrs, orient Paper Mills Ltd., against the orders of the Member (C. T.) Board of Revenue, in revision, rejecting their prayer for grant of refund under Section 14 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Orissa Act XIV of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of sales tax realised from them for the quarters mentioned below:OJC No.Quarter ending.Date of assessment including inter-State sales.Date of re-assessment u/s. 12 (7) (in respect of local sales only)Date of order on appeal against assessment noted in col. 3.Date of order on revision against appeal order noted in col. 5.Amount of re-fund claimed.1234567 Rs.as.ps.184/5531-3-5026-6-5019-12-5127-1-5127-6-5134,30950185/5530-6-5023-11-5019-12-5131-1-5127-6-5195,81930186/5530-9-5029-9-5119-12-5129-2-52...135,25000187/5531-12-5029-9-5119-12-5129-2-52...137,61370188/5531-3-5129- 9-5119-12-6129-2-52...144,853002. The petitioners paid the taxes in due course but when they came to kno...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 24(1958)CLT148; (1958)IILLJ91Ori
Das, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging ex facie the legality of the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, dated 11 July 1955. The facts material for this application are:The petitioner company, having its head office at Rayagada in the district of Koraput, started work in or about the year 1936. In January 1951 a union of the workers of the aforesaid company was started under the name ' Shramik Congress.' A number of demands thereafter were formulated by this Congress regarding the pay and prospects of the workers and the company accepted the same on the advice of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. In September 1951 the petitioner company dismissed and retrenched some workmen as a result of which the union served a notice on 15 October 1951 demanding their reinstatement, and threatened a strike in the event of non-compliance.The company eventually did not accept this demand and there was a strike on 19 October 1951. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1958Ori11; 23(1957)CLT395; 1958CriLJ63
ORDERNarasimham, C.J.1. This is a petition in revision to quash proceeding under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code pending against the petitioners in the Court of a 1st class Magistrate of Boudh on the ground that the entire proceeding was initiated without jurisdiction.2. On 14-12-55 one Ramgopal Seth gave a written report at Manmunda police station in Boudh sub-division to the effect that some gold ornaments and cash were stolen from his house. The local police at first recorded merely a station-diary entry but on 16-12-55 they instituted a regular F. I. R. and took up the investigation of the case. After completing investigation a Final Report was submitted on 8-2-56 to the effect that though there was some suspicion against the petitioner Mahatair Prasad Agarwala the evidence was insufficient for submitting charge-sheet against him.The Final Report appears to have been received in the Subdivisional Magistrate's office on 13-12-56 but there was some delay in its being put up befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1958Ori1; 1958CriLJ59
Narasimham C.J. 1. This is a petition in revision against an interlocutory order dated 4-9-1956 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Khurda in a criminal case under Section 409, Penal Code, pending against the petitioner in his file.2. The learned Magistrate, at the request of the prosecution, called upon the petitioner-accused to produce his F. P. S. Register (Foodgrains Procurement Stock Register). This order appears to have been passed by the Magistrate under Section 94, Criminal Procedure Code, though that section was not expressly quoted in the order.The order was challenged as unconstitutional on the ground that it contravened the fundamental right guaranteed by Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution, Reliance was placed mainly on a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300 (A), where it was held that the guarantee in Article 20(3) of the Constitution though against 'testimonial compulsion' would include protection...
Tag this Judgment!