K. Sairaju Vs. State

K. Sairaju vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Orissa Decided Jul 01, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/533994

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/533994
Court: Orissa High Court
Judge: Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.
Decided On: Jul 01, 2005
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 1988
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: Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 7; Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

K. Sairaju

Advocate Manoj Mishra and ;Dasarathi Pattnaik, Advs.

Respondent

State

Advocate Government Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 7; Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965
Reported In: 2005(II)OLR382

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. - the appellant was prosecuted as two quintals and sixty six kilograms of rice were recovered from his possession in violation of clause 3 of the orissa rice and paddy control order, 1965. 3. learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record.sujit barman roy, c.j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.5.1988 passed by the special judge, koraput, jeypore in connection with t.r.case no. 50 of 1986 onvicting the appellant under section 7(i) of the essential commodities act, 1955 and sentencing him to undergo r.i. for three months and to pay a fine of rs. 1000/- in default to undergo r.i. for twenty days.2. i have perused the impugned judgment. the appellant was prosecuted as two quintals and sixty six kilograms of rice were recovered from his possession in violation of clause 3 of the orissa rice and paddy control order, 1965.3. learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record. on perusal of the same, i am constrained to hold that the conviction of the appellant was justified and no interference therewith is called for. however, since the impugned judgment was passed and the appellant preferred this appeal, about seventeen years time has elapsed. in my view, it will be a travesty of justice to maintain the sentence of imprisonment in full. i, therefore alter the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and fine of rs. 5000/- in default to undergo r.i. for one month. the appellant shall surrender before the trial court within one month with a copy of this judgment for execution of the sentence as aforesaid.4. the appeal is accordingly disposed of

Full Judgment

Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.5.1988 passed by the Special Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in connection with T.R.Case No. 50 of 1986 onvicting the appellant under Section 7(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for twenty days.

2. I have perused the impugned judgment. The appellant was prosecuted as two quintals and sixty six kilograms of rice were recovered from his possession in violation of Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record. On perusal of the same, I am constrained to hold that the conviction of the appellant was justified and no interference therewith is called for. However, since the impugned judgment was passed and the appellant preferred this appeal, about seventeen years time has elapsed. In my view, it will be a travesty of justice to maintain the sentence of imprisonment in full. I, therefore alter the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month. The appellant shall surrender before the trial Court within one month with a copy of this judgment for execution of the sentence as aforesaid.

4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of

Same Court & Year Orissa · 2005 Same Parties K. Sairaju vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Sujit Barman Roy, C.J. Acts & Sections Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 7; Orissa Rice and...

Criminal