Sri Chandrasekhar Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....agreement between the orissa state financial corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the contract act, 1872 read with the provisions in the act, 1951 and its rules. on the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. thus, by virtue of the provision in section 56 read with section 64 (2) of the act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by orissa state financial corporation. by doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the orissa state financial corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. in other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the orissa state financial corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive,..........under section 317, cr. p.c . apart from that, there may be necessity of identifying the petitioner at the stage of trial if the list of witnesses shall include any outsider (having no acquintence with the petitioner) who became a victim of the road blockade. above all the said application under section 205, cr. p. c. was prematured keeping in view the provision in sub-section (1) of section 205, cr. p. c. inasmuch as by the date of moving the application under section 205, final form had not been submitted. in otherwords, the investigation was continuing and the proceeding had not reached the stage of considering whether process should be issued.for the reasons indicated above, this court does not find it to be a fit case co invoke the inherent power to interfere with the impugned order of learned j. m. f. c.. accordingly, the application under section 482 cr. p. c. is not admitted and dismissed being devoid of merit.6. application dismissed.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Heard.

2. This application under section 482, Cr.P.C. is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission.

3. In the F. I. R. in G. R. Case No. 7 of 2001 of the court of J. M. F. C.. Soro, the Circle Inspector of Police, Sadar Circle, Balasore, has alleged that on the ground of non-arrest of the culprits in a case of gang rape vide Simulia P. S. Case No. 149 dated 30-12-2000, some local leaders and people belonging to a Political patty on 3-1-2001, held a meeting from 1.30 p. m. to 4 p. m. on the premises of Lord Sival temple situated opposite to Simulia Police-station and made inflamatory speeches. At about 4. p. m. they came in front of the said Police-station and besides raising anti-police slogan, they blockade the National Highway No. 5 at that spot from about 4 p. m, to 7 p. m, , During that period, they brought the road traffic to a stand still and did not adhere the request of the informant and other Police personnels so also many persons travelling in light and heavy vehicles for allowing the traffic to run. It is further alleged in the F. I. R. that because of the said road blockade patients and children besides others travelling by vehicles were much harassed. As noted in the F. I. R. the offences involved are under sections 143 and 341 I. P. C. and section 7 of she Criminal Law Amendment Act. Petitioner is named as a leader in that melee taking active part in commission of the alleged crime.

4. Certified copy of the order sheet dated 22-1-2001 of the court of J. M. F. C.. Soro discloses that on that date petitionerentered appearance through counsel and filed two petitions one with the prayer to advance the case record and the other with the prayer to allow the petitioner to be represented under section 205, Cr. P. C. Learned S. D. J. M. allowed the first petition but rejected the application under section 205, Cr. P. C. because of involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid alleged crime. Thus, the petitioner has filed the present application under section 482, Cr. P. C. to invoke the inherent power and to pass appropriate order in that respect.

5. Making a protest against the alleged inaction of the local Police for not arresting the culprits of a gang rape may not be disappreciable thing though Political leaders should not take law into their own hands when legal remedy can be availed from appropriate administrative or legal forums. Be that as it may, in the name of such agitation, the conduct of the petitioner as a Political leader in causing inconvenience to innocent passers by and passengers can hardly be termed as a civilised action. Committing the aforesaid crime in the name of protest against Police inaction is far from genuine feeling. Activities of Political workers and leaders should always be for the good of the people. In the name of good cause, no action taken which causes harassment or inconvenience to innocent public should be appreciated or protected. In the name of protest against police inaction, certainly the petitioners or his associates (who are allegedly party to that agitation) had no right to cause inconvenience to the general public who are not connected with the said lapses of the Police. In the name of Police inaction there was no reason, much less good reason with the petitioner or his associates to immoblise the innocent and helpless perons passing on that road, Such misconduct which amounts to offence is not to be encouraged by allowing representation under section 205, Cr. P. C. when the above manner of road blockade is more frequent. This Court appreciates the approach of learned J.M.F.C, in rejecting the application under section 205, Cr. P. C. filed by the petitioner. Apart from that the grounds which has been advanced by the petitioner for absenting from the court is also found not sufficientinasmuch as because of holding the post of a Sarpanch, petitioner is not entitled for exemption from personal appearance under section 205, Cr. P. C. If at any stage, circumstances will 1ead to necessity, petitioner may approach the learned J. M. F. C. for representation under section 317, Cr. P.C . Apart from that, there may be necessity of identifying the petitioner at the stage of trial if the list of witnesses shall include any outsider (having no acquintence with the petitioner) who became a victim of the road blockade. Above all the said application under section 205, Cr. P. C. was prematured keeping in view the provision in sub-section (1) of section 205, Cr. P. C. inasmuch as by the date of moving the application under section 205, Final Form had not been submitted. In otherwords, the investigation was continuing and the proceeding had not reached the stage of considering whether process should be issued.

For the reasons indicated above, this Court does not find it to be a fit case Co invoke the inherent power to interfere with the impugned order of learned J. M. F. C.. Accordingly, the application under section 482 Cr. P. C. is not admitted and dismissed being devoid of merit.

6. Application dismissed.