Kamal Kumar Jena Vs. State

.....all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the orissa state financial corporation. 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, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the act, 1972 or the act, 1951. [air 2002 orissa 130 overruled]. -- state financial corporations act, 1951. section 29; discharge of loan orissa forest act (14 of 1972), section 56 confiscation of vehicle - held, the authorities under section 56 of the orissa forest act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of orissa state financial corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the orissa state financial corporation and.....orderp.c. misra, j.1. we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. n.c. panigrahi, the learned additional government advocate. the petitioner is accused of an offence of murder. earlier he had unsuccessfully moved this court for his release on bail. now he has made a fresh application on the ground that his mother is suffering from anaemia and bronchitis for which his presence is necessary. it has come to our notice . that a number of such applications are now being made by persons accused of serious and heinous offences after their applications for bail are rejected. the court should be very careful and circumspect while considering such applications even if they are supported by medical certificates. having carefully considered the matter, we see no reason to admit the petitioner to bail even for some period. the application is rejected. the miscellaneous case is accordingly dismissed.2. the trial be expedited and may be disposed of within three months, if possible.