Mandangi Samburu 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.....b.k. behera, j.1. the appellant stands convicted under section 302 of the indian penal code (for short the 'code') for having committed the murder of mandangi arjun (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') on march 8, 1980, in village lenda in the district of koraput, by hitting his head by a piece of stone (m. o. ii.) and causing injuries which resulted in his death and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. the findings recorded by the trial court that the deceased died a homicidal death and that the appellant had assaulted the deceased on his head by m. o. ii, as deposed to by p. w. 2, the sole witness to the occurrence, have not been assailed. mr. swamy for the appellant has submitted that the case against the appellant would come under the purview of section 304 part ii of the code and the sentence passed against him should be reduced to the period already undergone as the appellant has been in custody and has undergone imprisonment for over four and a half years.2. the occurrence had taken place on the spur of the moment after a sudden quarrel between the appellant and the deceased over the distribution of jack fruits of a tree. the co-accused palaka durmaya, who also stood trial and was accquitted, intervened and at this, the deceased attempted to assault the co-accused by means of stick which was snatchel away by the co-accused who assaulted the deceased as a result of which he fell down. the appellant then assaulted the deceased on his head by means of a stone without any pre-plan of pre-meditation and his unfortunately resulted in his death. as has been submitted at the bar, the appellant belongs to an aboriginal tribe and persons belonging to such tribes are easily inflammable by nature. in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant had the intention of causing the death of the deceased. it would be reasonable to hold that the appellant had the knowledge that by his act, he was likely to cause the death of the deceased. the.....