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

1958 Supreme(Ori) 111

BARMAN
KRUSHNA MOHANTY – Appellant
Versus
ARTABALLAV MOHANTY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.N. Misra, for the Appellant; G.G. Das, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT :

Barman, J. - This revision is directed against an order passed by the Magistrate 1st class, Cuttack, convicting the accused-Petitioners u/s 427 Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 40/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days each in Case No. 725 C-1 of 1955.

2. The complainant was the owner of a plot of land No. 1157 and the accused-Petitioners were the owners of the adjoining plot of land No. 1158 at Mouza Banpur within police station Mahallga in district Cuttack. The prosecution case is that on August 4, 1955 the accused Petitioners had cut and removed the boundary ridge between these two adjoining plots during the temporary absence of the complainant and had constructed a new ridge after encroaching upon the complainant's plot No. 1157. The accused persons were charged with the offence of causing mischief u/s 427 Indian Penal Code. At the trial there were four witnesses called by the prosecution. The complainant P.W. 1 was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W. 4 was a witness after the occurrence. The eye-witnesses to the alleged encroachment were P.W. 2, a former servant of the complainant, and P.W. 3, a day labourer. Th





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