SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1949 Supreme(Ori) 30

PANIGRAHI
Krupasindhu Panigrahi – Appellant
Versus
Rex – Respondent


Advocates:
K. Patnaik-for Petnr.; Advocate-General - for Opposite Party.

Order. - The petnr. was served with a notice under S. 112, Cr. P. C., to show cause why he should not be directed to execute a bond to be of good behaviour under S. 110, Cr. P. C. for a period of three years. Along with the petnr. two other persons were also impleaded and served with similar notices and an enquiry M. C. No. 647/47 was started against the three persons by the Subdivisional Mag., Ghumusur. The Police filed a report under S. 110 (d), (e) and (f), Cr. P. C. against these three persons on 24-9-47 and cited 84 instances of acts of misbehaviour and 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 following terms :

"Perused the report of the S. I, of Police, Aska and it appears from the Police report that you (1) Krupasindhu Panigrahi (2) Dondia Gowdo, and (3) Bancha Palo of village Horodapadoro, P. S. Aska, within t















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top