Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003CriLJ722; 2002(II)OLR184
ORDERC.R. Pal, J.1. In this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who figure as accused persons in G.R. Case No: 419 of 200l of the Court of S.D.J.M., Angul corresponding to Angul P.S. Case No. 98 of 2001 for their alleged involvement in the commission of offences under Sections 452, 294, 323, 427, 354, 506 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have for quashing the proceeding.2. The case against the petitioners is that on 24-5-2001 at about 4.00 p.m. the petitioners came to the house of the informant and called his cousin Baidyanath Biswal in a threatening voice. The informant came out of his house to ascertain the reasons, but the petitioners scolded him in filthy and derogatory language touching his caste. When he protested against such action of the petitioners, they forcibly entered into his house and one of them assaulted him by means of a iron rod. When the mother of the informan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1995CriLJ174; 1994(II)OLR430
A. Pasayat, J.1. Appellant Keshab Chandra Panda (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') calls in question legality of his conviction for an offence punishable Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') and sentence of seven years imprisonment as awarded by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur,2. Accusation which led to trial of accused- appeiiant are as follows :On 15-1-1989,the accused and Pravatini alias Chema Kar (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') entered into wedlock. Subsequently, some dissensions surfaced between them, which according to prosecution was on account of non-fulfilment of demands for dowry made at the time of marriage. The accused assaulted the deceased with an iron red on 2-6-1989, which led to lodging of information at Kuakhia Out-Post on 3-6-1989. A Station Diary Entry was made. An effort was made to bring about amity between the accused and deceased. After a long stay in the house of her parents, the deceased returned to the h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2001CriLJ4574
P.C. Naik, J.1. In exercise of powers conferred on him, under Section 3(z) of the National Security Act, 1980, (in short, 'the Act') the District Magistrate, Kalahandi passed an order on 13-11-2000 that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') be detained. Accordingly, he was taken into custody on 14-11-2000. Aggrieved therewith, the detenu has filed this writ petition challenging the order of detention and his continued detention under the Act.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated thus:In connection with Bhaganipatna Town P.C. Case No. 138 dated 17-10-2000 under Sections. 307/34, I.P.C. the detenu was taken into custody the same day and was forwarded to the Court on 18-10-2000. on the basis of a confidential report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kalahandi, the District Magistrate, Kalahandi being of the opinion and on being satisfied that in order to maintain public order, it was necessary to detain the detenu, an order of det...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1955Ori135
Panigrahi, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a partition filed by Subhashini Devi, the widow of one Harimohan who died as an undivided member of a Hindu joint family consisting of himself and defendants 1 and 2 who are the appellants before us. Harimohan died in or about the year 1942. Items 13 to 18 of the properties mentioned in Schedule Ga attached to the plaint were purchased by defendants 1 and 2 under Exts. B to B-2 and Ex 2 between, the years 1943 to 1945.The appellants claimed that these items, which had been subsequently purchased, did not constitute the joint family property in which the plaintiff could claim a share as they were their self-acquisitions. The learned Subordinate Judge negatived this contention and gave a decree for partition in respect of all the properties, including the disputed items 13 to 18 of Schedule Ga.2. The only point that has been strenuously urged before us is whether these items are liable to be partitioned as joint family properties. Mr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. The petitioners are the accused persons in I.C.C. Case No. 2710 of 2008 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. The complaint petition was filed by the opp. party no. 1 herein, against the petitioners and other accused persons making allegation of commission of offence under sections 499/500/501/502/34 IPC . The petitioner no. 1 is the Editor of the daily Oriya newspaper, "The Dharitri" and the petitioner no. 2 is its Printer and Publisher. On the complaint petition being filed, the learned S.D.J.M. recorded the initial statement of the complainant and by order dated 26.6.2008, considering the initial deposition of the complainant and the documents available on record found that prima facie evidence of commission of offence under sections 500/501/502/34 IPC is revealed. Hence, he took cognizance of the said offences and directed issuance of process against the accused persons including the two petitioners fixing 21.7.2008 for appearance. The petitioners accused persons as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1977]110ITR538(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J. 1. On an application by the assessee under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), this court directed the Cuttack Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question for the opinion of the court : ' Whether the amount of penalty imposable should have been worked out on the basis of the law in force at the time the return was filed and the delinquency of excluding a part of the income had been committed ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. The relevant assessment year is 1965-66 corresponding to the previous Rama Navami year ending with April 9, 1965. The return for the year was filed on December 12, 1966, and assessment was completed on March 13, 1969, determining a total income of Rs. 81,470. The Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment by issue of a notice under Section 147 of the Act. The assessee filed a fresh return on April 6, 1971, but stuck to the figures returned originally. On...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1976]105ITR82(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, at the instance of the revenue and the following question has been referred for the opinion of the court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in cancelling the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as barred by limitation by holding that the amendment to Section 275 of the Act (substituted by Act 42 of 1970) being operative from April 1, 1971, does not extend the period of limitation in respect of penalty proceedings initiated on October 21, 1970, pending for disposal as on April 1, 1971 ?'2. Assessee is an individual and the relevant assessment year is 1968-69. Return for the year was filed on November 12, 1968, disclosing income of Rs. 11,570 but assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 28,894 on 20th of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1993(I)OLR439
S.K. Mohanty, J.1. Accused is in revision against order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, not allowing his prayer to read as evidence certain receipts filed by him or to recall the complainant for further examination with reference to the receipts or to afford reasonable opportunity to the accused to prove the same.2. Accused petitioner is being tried for the offences Under Sections 419 and 420, IPC. in the Court below. Statement of the accused petitioner was recorded on 19-9-1988. He declined to adduce evidence and argument was heard on that day. The case was then posted to 24-9-1988 for judgment. On 23-9-1988 the accused filed a petition stating that he was filing some money receipts which may be read as evidence in the case, if their genuineness is not disputed or also complainant may be recalled for further examination or reasonable opportunity may be given to the accused to prove those receipts.3. It is urged on behalf of the accused, that the trial Court should have allowed his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1953Ori117
Narasimham, J. 1. This Special Bench was constituted to hear the preliminary question as to whether the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in--'Sri Rama Chandra v. Collector of Agricultural Income-tax', AIR 1962 Orissa 281 (A) regarding the construction of the words 'an order under Section 28 enhancing an assessment or otherwise prejudicial to him' occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 29, Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act, requires revision in view of the decision of the Privy Council in--'Commr. of Income-tax West Punjab, North West Frontier and Delhi Provinces, Lahore v. Tribune Trust Lahore', AIR 1943 P. C. 102 (B) which unfortunately was not cited before the said Division Bench of this Court. 2. The petitioner was assessed to agricultural income-tax by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Balasore. He appealed against the assessment to the Collector of Agricultural Income-tax under Section 25, Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act. The Collector gave him partial relief and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori84
Ray, C.J.1. The petitioners seek review of the orders of the Court below convicting them under Sections 145 and 188, Penal Code, for having violated an order under Schedule 44, Criminal P. C., promulgated by the Magistrate and having failed to disperse the unlawful assembly after having been commanded to do so.2. The petitioners' contention is that the prosecution under Schedule 88, Penal Code, is bad in law as no complaint was filed by the public authority concerned according to the provisions of Schedule 95, Criminal P. C. Secondly, that the trial, being bad in law as to Schedule 88, Penal Code, is bad in its entirety.3. These contentions are sought to be met by the learned Advocate-General, appearing for the State, in two ways: (i) that the offence under. Schedule 88, Penal Code, has bean declared cognisable under Schedule 0, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, and hence compliance with Section 195, Criminal P. C. is not necessary; and (ii) that even if the trial be bad with regard to...
Tag this Judgment!