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.

Prabhash Ch. Bebarta Vs. State

Prabhash Ch. Bebarta vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Orissa Decided Dec 02, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/533323

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 Revision No. 605 of 1999
Subject
Criminal

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
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 397

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prabhash Ch. Bebarta

Respondent

State

Legal References

Reported In
2000(I)OLR59

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. .....notice of that transfer was not given to the appellant as a result of which the appellant was in dark about pendency of the appeal in the court of acldl. sessions judge, sonepur. as a result of that, the appellant, did not participate, but the learned addl. sessions judge disposed of the crl. appeal without hearing the appellant. learned counsel for the petitioner further states that appellant is very much desirous to place his points of contention before the appellate court. learned addl. standing counsel concedes to factual aspects as stated by the petitioner after going through the judgment.3. the manner in which the appeal was disposed of by the addl. sessions judge, sonepur is most unusual inasmuch as if the appellant did not appear to participate in hearing he should have appointed an amicus curiae to address the court on behalf of the appellant or the consequential order for the default could have been made, but the appeal could not have been disposed of on merit only by hearing the respondent (i.e. the state). apart from that, when the petitioner is prepared to argue before the appellate court it is felt just and proper in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned judgment dated 6.10.1999 in the aforesaid crl. appeal and remit back the matter to the court of addl. sessions judge, sonepur to hear and dispose of the appeal on merit and in accordance with law.4. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes that the appellant will appear before the addl. sessions judge on 22.12.1999 along with a copy of this order and thereafter learned addl. sessions judge shall fix a date for hearing of the appeal and shall dispose of the appeal within a period of two months thereafter.

Full Judgment

ORDER

P.K. Tripathy, J.

1. Heard. This revision is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State of Orissa who is the solitary opposite party.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the crl. appeal filed by him in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Bolangir was transferred to the file of Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Sonepur after that Court was established and the case record of the Crl. Appeal No. 54/6 of ! 995- 96 was transferred to the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepur, but notice of that transfer was not given to the appellant as a result of which the appellant was in dark about pendency of the appeal in the Court of Acldl. Sessions Judge, Sonepur. As a result of that, the appellant, did not participate, but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge disposed of the crl. appeal without hearing the appellant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that appellant is very much desirous to place his points of contention before the appellate Court. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel concedes to factual aspects as stated by the petitioner after going through the judgment.

3. The manner in which the appeal was disposed of by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepur is most unusual inasmuch as if the appellant did not appear to participate in hearing he should have appointed an amicus curiae to address the Court on behalf of the appellant or the consequential order for the default could have been made, but the appeal could not have been disposed of on merit only by hearing the respondent (i.e. the State). Apart from that, when the petitioner is prepared to argue before the appellate Court it is felt just and proper in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned judgment dated 6.10.1999 in the aforesaid crl. appeal and remit back the matter to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepur to hear and dispose of the appeal on merit and in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes that the appellant will appear before the Addl. Sessions Judge on 22.12.1999 along with a copy of this order and thereafter learned Addl. Sessions Judge shall fix a date for hearing of the appeal and shall dispose of the appeal within a period of two months thereafter.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial