Court : Orissa
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7693 of 2011 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ---------All India Networks Welfare Trust, Represented through its Managing Trust-cumFounder President, K.Selvaraj, Son of Late karuppaswamy, 1/A, M.S.K.S. Building No.3, 3rd Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore020. and others . Petitioners . Opp. parties -Vs.Superintendent of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Crime Branch, Odisha, AT/PO/Dist: Cuttack and others. For Petitioners : Mr.Bijan Ray, Sr. Advocate M/s. B.P.Nayak, B.Mohanty, S.Mohanty & B.Moharana [For Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2]. M/s Sidharth Prasad Mishra, B.K.Nayak, D.P.Patra, R.Rath, D.Mishra & D.Behera M/s. A.K.Behera, & S.K.Mahanta M/s K.P.Mishra, S.Mohapatra, T.P.Tripathy M/s. K.M.Mishra, R.K.Nanda, S.Chakrabarty & T.Sinha [For intervenor-petitioners) For Opp. Parties : Mr. Debasis Panda, Addl. Government Advocate, [For O.P. No.1]. M/s. N. K. Dash, S.K.Barik, S.K.Nayak & A.P.Rath ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1956Ori177; 1956CriLJ1208
Narasimham, J.1. This is an sppeal from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Balasore convicting the appellants under Section 400, Penal Code and sentencing them to various terms of imprisonment. Fortyfive persons were tried in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge for an offence under Section 400, I.P.C., on the allegation that they belonged to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity during the period from 28-11-49 to 18-7-52.The learned Sessions Judge convicted twenty-three persons and acquitted the rest. The State Government preferred an appeal (Government Appeal No. 8 of 1954) against the acquittal of Abhi-manyu Sahu, Paramananda Behera and Kalicharao Maharana, They also filed a revision petition (Crl. Rev. No. 103/54) for enhancement of the sentence passed on Gour Chandra Dutta and Amulya Chandra Das. Of the convicted persons, accused Haradhan Mukherji, Gour Chandra Dutta, Kalu Khan, Sk. Kasi alias Kasiruddin and Gourhari Jena did not prefe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1956Ori129; 22(1956)CLT351; 1956CriLJ909
P.V.B. Rao, J.1. All these applications were posted for hearing to 24-2-1956 by our order dated 20-2-1956. They were heard together on the 24lh and this judgment covers all the cases.2. These are eleven applications filed by 39 persons in judicial custody in Puri Jail under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Sections 496, 497 and 498 Criminal P. C. for the issue of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus as their detention was illegal. They also prayed for release on bail.3. The main allegations of the petitioners in all the applications are that the petitioners are respectable citizens of Puri possessed of considerable property both moveable and immoveable; that they were arrested without a warrant; that the bail applications filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the Sadar Sub-Division, Puri, were not disposed of that during the hearing of the bail applications, they came to know that they Were prosecuted for offences under Sections 146, 149, 435, 188 379, 332, 395 and...
Tag this Judgment!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 : AIR1956Ori201; 22(1956)CLT397; 1956CriLJ1341; (1957)ILLJ650Ori
Rao, J. 1. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 1955 filed this appeal against his conviction under Section 165, Penal Code and sentence to a fine of Rs. 600/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, by the judgment of the Special Judge, Puri. The Criminal Revision was filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence. 2. The Investigating Officer, the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Special Police Establishment. Puri filed a charge sheet against the appellantthat the appellant committed an offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(i)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act (Act 2 of 1947), punishable under Clause (2) of the said section. The Investigating Officer alleged that during Investigation of Crime No. 5 of 1952 which was a complaint against the accused of having committed criminal conspiracy, cheating and attempt to cheat in connection with contract and payments taken by a contractor for excavation of certain reaches in Dudbhaga distributory, it came ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1956Ori206; 22(1956)CLT461; 1956CriLJ1345
Rao, J. 1. This application in revision arises out of a peculiar order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar and Magistrate 1st Class, Purl. 2. In G. R. Case No. 705/T. 147/1954, one Punia Chandra Swain was convicted by the Bub-divisional Magistrate, Puri under S. 381, Penal Code for theft of Rs. 7000/- from the possession of Sri Sindha Kamal Nayana Ramanuj Das, the Mahant of Sidha Math, Puri, who is the opposite party in the present revision. The stolen property consisting of Rs. 7000/- was recovered and seized and was in the custody of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. 3. Khetramohali Nayak, the petitioner herein, obtained a decree against the opposite party in a civil suit. That decree was passed against the opposite party in his personal capacity and it was not a decree against him in his capacity As the Mahant of Sidha Math belonging to Jagannath :Mahaprayu. 4. In execution of the said decree (Execution Case No. 55 of 1954) obtained by the petitioner against the opposite par...
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 : AIR1957Ori93; 23(1957)CLT217; 1957CriLJ527
Narasimham, C.J. 1. This revision is against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Cuttack modifying the judgment of the trial court, but maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act (Act I of 1878) for unlawful possession of 32 bags of poppy capsules. The Excise Sub-Inspector of Dhenkanal (P. W. 4) seized the said 32 bags of capsules on the 19-1-1954 and sent some of the capsules to the Chemical Examiner, Calcutta, whose report (Ext. 2) was to the effect that they contained ingredients of opium. P. W. 4 further stated that all the seized capsules bore marks of incision indicating that the juice had been extracted, 2. The petitioners admitted the recovery of the capsules of the poppy from their possession but urged that possession of incised capsules from which the Juice had been extracted would not amount to an offence under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act. The lower appellate court, however, thought, relying on Jagjiwan Pitambar v. Emperor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1957Ori281; 1957CriLJ1437
Narasimham, C.J. 1. The three petitioners were tried before the Adalti Panchayat of Amrutmanohi for an offence under Section 323, I. P. C. and petitioner No. 1 was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20/- and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 to a fine of Rs. 10/- each. They filed a revision petition before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kendrapara against their conviction and sentence alleging various irregularities in the trial. Bait the Sub-divisional Magistrate declined to interfere. 2. The Amrutmanohi Adalti Panchayat was constituted under the provisions of the Orissa Grain Panchayats Act 1948 and the procedure to be followed by the Panchayat for the trial of offences is fully described in Chapter VII of that Act and the various rules framed thereunder. An offence under Section 323, I. P. C., is one of the offences cognizable by an Adalti Panchayat under Section 64(1) of the Act. The procedure before the Adalti Panchayat is summary and Section 82 of the Act directs every Adalti Panchayat to dispo...
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!