Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori297
Ray, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal in a bribery case. The resp., S.N. Singh Ray, the accused, was the Station Master of Meramundeli Rly, Station (B. N. Rly.) on 2-2-1947, the date of occurrence. The informant, P. W. 3 (Waiz Mohammad) is an agent of Khan Sahib Muhammad Khan, a merchant dealing in timbers & Kendu leaves with headquarters at Sambalpur. The agent had headquarters at Angul. P. W. 4, Luxmidhar Sahu, is another agent of Khan Sahib, stationed at Meramundeli Rly. Station, who owes subordination to Waiz Mohammad. The latter supplies money to the former for loading & unloading expenses of the goods. Luxmidhar keeps accounts separately relating to transactions in timber Ex. 10, & transactions relating to Kendu leaves, Ex. 10 (l). It is said by both of them that the accused Station Master was in the habit of demanding & receiving bribe @ Rs. 50 for indent & supply of only wagon for consignment of the aforesaid goods.2. On 28-1-1947, P. w. 3 fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori64
Panigrahi, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are rather complicated, but the question of law arising is extremely simple. 2. The plaintiffs deceased husband, Danei, was the adopted son of Kelu. Kelu and Pira were uterine brothers. Subsequent to the adoption of plaintiff's husband a son, Kalindi, was born to Kelu, and as Kalindi died issueless when he was joint with Danei, Kelu'a 8 annas share in the joint family properties devolved on him. Pira brother of Kelu, died leaving him surviving his widow, Sadhabani. The admitted case of the parties is that by a registered deed of partition, dated 15th June 1913, the plots in disputes were divided between Kelu and Pira. The present dispute relates to possession of the properties allotted at the partition. During his lifetime Kalindi (the natural born son of Kelu) executed a deed of gift dated 30th January 1917, in favour of Banambar, son of Pira, conveying the 8 annas share of Kelu in the suit properties ignoring the interests of Dane...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori291
Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell a plot of homestead land bearing plot No. 1051 within Jemmabandi 98 of Cuttack Khasamahal. Four annas share in the suit plot belonged to Raikriahna Mohanty, deft. 2 & the rest belonged to applt. 1, Rajakishor Mohanty. Deft. 2 also owned in his own right the adjoining plot of land bearing No. 1052 within Jammabandi 9T. Deft. 2 wanted to sell plot No. 1052 applied to the Khasamahal authorities for permission to sell. Among the objectors were deft. 1 (Dr. Banabehari Patnaik), pltf. 2 (Sachidananda Mohanty) son of pltf. 1 & some other persons. The Khasamahal enquiry was posted to 6-4-1941 when deft. 2 filed Ex. 5, which is a petn. of compromise alleged to have been arrived at between the parties. The main clauses of this compromise are that pltf. 2, Sachidananda should withdraw his objection to the sale of plot No. 1052 & allow deft. 1 to purchase it from deft. 2 and that deft. 2 should sell to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori245
ORDERRay, C.J. 1. The petition is by the complainant. He feels aggrieved by the order of the trying Magistrate (Shri S. S. Roy) refusing to examine some more witnesses for the prosecution at the stage of the trial where Section 256, Criminal P. C., came into operation. 2. The facts are that after a long and chequered career, the criminal case started by the petitioner, came to the file of Sri S. S. Roy for disposal. On the date, he received the file, he asked the complainant (petitioner) to produce his witnesses on the following date, on the said date, that is 19th August 1948, the complainant could not be present in Court and an application for excusing his absence was filed. At his instance, the case was adjourned, but the complainant was required to file a list of witnesses within two days. Thereupon, three witnesses were summoned for the prosecution and were present in Court on the next date. They were examined and (partially) cross-examined before the charge was framed. After char...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori349
Ray, C.J.1. This is revn. directed against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Puri disappearing the pltf. under Order 38, Rule 9, Civil P. C. The pltf. admittedly is a member of a Hindu Mitakahara Joint family & his father is one of the defts. in the suit. The suit is for setting aside certain alienations, made by his father & for recovery of the properties so alienated. The attack on those alienations is based upon immorality & illegality of the transactions. The pltf. applied for leave to sue in forma paupris. Of his appln. due notices were given to the Crown as well as the defts. opposite party. They filed their objections challenging the plea of pauperism but none of the contesting parties appeared at the date when the matter was heard by the Ct. The Ct. purporting to act under Order 33, Rule 7 granted the pltf. leave to sue as a pauper on which his appln. for leave was registered as a suit & was to proceed, as such, in the ordinary way except that he should be exempted fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori61
Narasimham, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in this appeal. The plaintiff purchased occupancy holding No. 83 in which is included sikmi plot No. 868 measuring 39 decimals in extent, from the recorded raiyat by a sale-deed dated 9th April 1945. The defendant was recorded as a Sikimidar of the plot and the plaintiff's suit was for ejectment of the Sikimidar under Section 57 (b), Orissa Tenancy Act, after service of the usual notice to quit. 2. The main defence taken by the defendant was that he was not liable to eviction because the disputed plot (868) was his homestead and that under the provisions of Section 236, Orissa 'Tenancy Act as recently amended by Orissa Act, X [10] of 1946 occupancy right had accrued to him in his homestead. The trial Court accepted this plea but the lower appellate Court held that the homestead of the appellant was limited to that portion of the disputed plot in which his dwelling house stood and that as regards the remaining portion of the plot the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori88
Panigrahi, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge Outtack. The respondent Hari Baisakh was charged with an offence under Sections 7/17 of Act xxiv [24] of 1946. of having attempted to remove 42 lbs of handloom cloth beyond the limits of the Orisaa Province on 7th August 1948. The accused was found boarding the 5 Dn. Train at Cuttack on 7th August 1943 earring 42 1bs handloom cloth. P. W. 1 the Anti-Smuggling S. I. ascertained that the accused had no permit to transport the cloth from Orisaa to Bengal. By a Notification No. 16100 ST dated 3rd June 1946 of the Government of Orissa the transport of handloom cloth without a permit from the Supply Department, beyond the limits of the province, is made punishable. The accused was therefore charged with having committed an offence in having contravened this Notification and was therefore punishable under Section 7 of Act XXIV of 1946. P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 merely prove that the accused had a ticket fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori277
ORDERPanigrahi, J.1. The petnr. was served with a notice under Schedule 12, Cr. P. C., to show cause why he should not be directed to execute a bond to be of good behaviour under Schedule 10, Cr. P. C. for a period of three years. Along with the petnr. two other persons were also impleaded & served with similar notices & an enquiry M. c. No. 647/47 was started against the three persons by the Sub-divisional Mag., Ghumusur. The Police filed a report under Section 110 (d), (e) & (f), Cr. P. C. against these three persons on 24-9-47 & cited 84 instances of acts of misbehaviour & offences alleged to have been committed or threatened to have been committed by one or the other of the persons named in the report covering a period of over twelve years commencing from 1935. The Police also cited 140 witnesses to be examined to prove the various acts of high-handedness alleged to have been committed at different times by these persons. The Mag. drew up proceedings on the 4th November in the foll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori35
Ray, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal in a suit for declaration that the suit lands are their ancestral joint family properties and that defendant 1 has not acquired any title thereto by virtue of a sale-deed dated 27-2-1940, executed by defendant 2. The plaintiffs and the husband of defendant 2 were members of a-joint Hindu Mitakshara family at the time of the latter's death. On his death, defendant 2 succeeded to her husband's interest in the family properties under the Hindu Women's Eight to Property Act She transferred her this interest in favour of defendant 1 by the aforesaid sale-deed. The suit was resisted on the ground that defendant a had the right to alienate and the said alienation is binding on the plaintiffs. There was some dispute as between the parties as to whether the claimed properties were ancestral joint family properties. That controversy, however, has been set at rest and has not been re-agitated here. In this appeal, we shall proceed oh the assumption that Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori6
Ray, C.J.1. This is defendant 8's appeal in a suit for enforcement of a mortgage dated 27th July 1926 for a consideration of Rs. 12,000 executed by defendants 1 and 2 and their father late Narain Gantayat. The aforesaid mortgage was executed in full discharge of a prior mortgage dated 16th December 1911 for a consideration of Rs. 8000. The latter consideration was made up of cash advances from time to time under promotes and the interests that accrued due thereon. It is undisputed that out of the consideration of Rs. 12,000, Rs. 6000 represented interest accruing due on the pronotes and the prior mortgage bond, the balance being the amounts advanced in cash. Defendants 1 and 2 are the primary mortgagors. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 are the sons of defendant 1. Defendants 6 and 7 are sons of defendant 2. Defendant 8, the present appellant is a, purchaser of Schedules B-1 and B-2 properties subject to the mortgage. Defendants 9 to 12 are also subsequent purchasers of certain minor items of mor...
Tag this Judgment!