Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

State Vs. Pramod Kumar Misra

State vs Pramod Kumar Misra

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Orissa Decided Jul 21, 2006
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/532532

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Orissa High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 1988
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LABOUR & SERVICES Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b) Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.198...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 340 and 341

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State

Advocate D.K. Mohapatra, Adv.

Respondent

Pramod Kumar Misra

Advocate None

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 340 and 341
Reported In
2006(II)OLR334

Excerpt

- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. - therefore, at the instance of the state the present appeal is clearly not maintainable as it has not been filed by the inspector of vigilance.s. barman roy, c.j.1. being aggrieved by the order dated 8.8.1988 passed by the learned additional special judge, bhubaneswar rejecting the application of the inspector of vigilance under section 340 of the code of criminal procedure for lodging a complaint against the respondent for giving false evidence in connection with a judicial proceeding, the state has preferred this appeal under section 341 of the code of criminal procedure.2. this appeal has not been preferred by any person, namely, the inspector of vigilance, who filed the application under section 340, cr.p.c. before the learned additional special judge for lodging a complaint against the respondent for giving false evidence. under section 341, cr.p.c. only such person whose application under section 340, cr.p.c has been rejected or the person against whom a complaint is directed to be made, can prefer an appeal. therefore, at the instance of the state the present appeal is clearly not maintainable as it has not been filed by the inspector of vigilance.3. apart from the aforesaid, since the appeal was filed in this court about 18 years' time has elapsed, it will be sheer injustice to interfere with the impugned order at this belated stage.4. in the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

S. Barman Roy, C.J.

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 8.8.1988 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge, Bhubaneswar rejecting the application of the Inspector of Vigilance under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for lodging a complaint against the respondent for giving false evidence in connection with a judicial proceeding, the State has preferred this appeal under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. This appeal has not been preferred by any person, namely, the Inspector of Vigilance, who filed the application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Special Judge for lodging a complaint against the respondent for giving false evidence. Under Section 341, Cr.P.C. only such person whose application under Section 340, Cr.P.C has been rejected or the person against whom a complaint is directed to be made, can prefer an appeal. Therefore, at the instance of the State the present appeal is clearly not maintainable as it has not been filed by the Inspector of Vigilance.

3. Apart from the aforesaid, since the appeal was filed in this Court about 18 years' time has elapsed, it will be sheer injustice to interfere with the impugned order at this belated stage.

4. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial