Satyananda Pani Vs. State of Orissa

Satyananda Pani vs State of Orissa

Disposition Case allowed Court Orissa Decided Nov 25, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/533749

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/533749
Court: Orissa High Court
Judge: P.K. Misra, J.
Decided On: Nov 25, 1999
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1245 of 1998
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Case allowed

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: Case allowed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 400, 407 and 408; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Satyananda Pani

Advocate B. Panda, ;S.R. Mohapatra, ;S.C. Mishra, ;G.P. Panda and ;B.R. Mohanty

Respondent

State of Orissa

Advocate S. Jena, Addl. Standing Counsel

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 400, 407 and 408; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Reported In: 2000(I)OLR181

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. - 2. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it would be convenient for the accused as well as the prosecutor if the case is tried before the special judge, vigilance, bhubaneswar......the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it would be convenient for the accused as well as the prosecutor if the case is tried before the special judge, vigilance, bhubaneswar. prima facie, such submission appears to be correct. however, there is still a stronger ground to direct that the case should be tried before the special judge, vigilance, bhubaneswar. it appears that charge had already been framed by the special judge, vigilance, bhubaneswar, and as such it can be taken that hearing of the case had already commenced. once hearing in a case is already commenced, the said case can be transferred to another court only by exercising judicial power envisaged under section 407 or section 408, cr.p.c, as the case may be. in the present case, it is clear that the case has been transferred on the administrative side on the establishment of the court at berhampur. even before effecting such transfer on administrative ground, the accused who is a person likely to be affected by such order of transfer was not heard. since hearing in the case is deemed to have commenced on framing of charge, and the accused was not heard before the order of transfer which was passed in the administrative side, and since it would be convenient for parties if the case is tried at bhubaneswar, it is hereby directed that trial case no. 45/95 shall be tried before the special judge, vigilance, bhubaneswar, and not before the special judge, vigilance, berhampur.the criminal misc. case is accordingly allowed.

Full Judgment

P.K. Misra, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this application Under Section 407, Code of Criminal Procedure, for transfer of a criminal case. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted Under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)/7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The matter was pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, being numbered as Trial No. 45/95. Subsequently, a Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, was established at Berhampur by Government Notification dated 6.12.1997 and on the basis of instruction issued from the office of the High Court, the case was directed to be transmitted to the Court of the Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it would be convenient for the accused as well as the prosecutor if the case is tried before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar. Prima facie, such submission appears to be correct. However, there is still a stronger ground to direct that the case should be tried before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar. It appears that charge had already been framed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, and as such it can be taken that hearing of the case had already commenced. Once hearing in a case is already commenced, the said case can be transferred to another Court only by exercising judicial power envisaged Under Section 407 or Section 408, Cr.P.C, as the case may be. In the present case, it is clear that the case has been transferred on the administrative side on the establishment of the Court at Berhampur. Even before effecting such transfer on administrative ground, the accused who is a person likely to be affected by such order of transfer was not heard. Since hearing in the case is deemed to have commenced on framing of charge, and the accused was not heard before the order of transfer which was passed in the administrative side, and since it would be convenient for parties if the case is tried at Bhubaneswar, it is hereby directed that Trial Case No. 45/95 shall be tried before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, and not before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur.

The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.

Same Court & Year Orissa · 1999 Same Parties Satyananda Pani vs State of Orissa Same Subject Criminal Same Judge P.K. Misra, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 400, 407 ...

Criminal