Y. Phanikumar Vs. State of Orissa

Y. Phanikumar vs State of Orissa

Disposition Application dismissed Court Orissa Decided Jul 22, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/535278

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/535278
Court: Orissa High Court
Judge: P.K. Tripathy, J.
Decided On: Jul 22, 2002
Case Number: Crl. Misc. Case No. 4998 of 2002
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application 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: Application dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 397, 397(3) and 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Y. Phanikumar

Advocate C.A. Rao

Respondent

State of Orissa

Advocate Y.S.R. Murti, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 397, 397(3) and 482
Reported In: 94(2002)CLT806

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. - shall hear learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned public prosecutor......is not the position of law nor mandate of the principle of natural justice to grant such protection to persons booked for criminal acts and offences. under such circumstance learned addl. sessions judge was absolutely justified in passing the impugned order in the aforesaid criminal revision.4. apart from that, since the petitioner has availed the revisional jurisdiction in accordance with the provision in section 397, cr.p.c.and as per the aforesaid examination of position on record this court finds no illegality in the same, therefore, this court finds the application under section 482, cr.p.c., which in disguise a second revision application, is not maintainable in view of sub-section (3) of section 397, cr.p.c.5. be that as it may, if the petitioner shall surrender in the court of s.d.j.m., berhampur and consent for a t.i. parade, learned s.d.j.m. shall get that conducted either by himself or by any other magistrate, if available, most expeditiously before taking any further action in the matter. in that respect learned s.d.j.m. shall hear learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned public prosecutor. in the event petitioner shall not give consent for a t.i. parade, then if the courts below will allow the petitioner to go on bail then such bail order should be accompanied with a condition for his personal appearance in the trial court on each date of trial so that the victim and witnesses shall be in a position to identify if he was one of the culprits.with the said observation, the criminal misc. case stands dismissed.

Full Judgment

P.K. Tripathy, J.

1. Heard.

2. In this Application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. petitioner challenges the order of cognizance in G. R. Case No. 1033 of 1994 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Berhampur, which was refused to be interfered with by learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur on an application by the present petitioner, registered as Criminal Revision No. 59/51 of 1995-97.

3. The allegation, as averred in the FIR, is relating to a rubbery committed on the informant by two persons, out of whom one was apprehended and is now facing the trial and the other, as alleged, is the petitioner. Because of his absconding, as noted by the investigating agency, a charge-sheet was submitted by showing him as an absconder and long after in the year 1997 without being surrendering in the Court of S.D.J.M. the petitioner moved for quashing of the order of cognizance on the ground that he has not been named in the FIR, and the statement of the co-accused implicating him is not sufficient to book him for the offence. If the logic which the petitioner has adopted shall be applied in every case, then the dacoits who are not known to the victim cannot be tried or prosecuted in the Court of law if after looting the victim they will abscond for some years and claim advantage in the aforesaid manner. Certainly that is not the position of law nor mandate of the principle of natural justice to grant such protection to persons booked for criminal acts and offences. Under such circumstance learned Addl. Sessions Judge was absolutely justified in passing the impugned order in the aforesaid Criminal Revision.

4. Apart from that, since the petitioner has availed the revisional jurisdiction in accordance with the provision in Section 397, Cr.P.C.and as per the aforesaid examination of position on record this Court finds no illegality in the same, therefore, this Court finds the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., which in disguise a second revision application, is not maintainable in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 397, Cr.P.C.

5. Be that as it may, if the petitioner shall surrender in the Court of S.D.J.M., Berhampur and consent for a T.I. parade, learned S.D.J.M. shall get that conducted either by himself or by any other Magistrate, if available, most expeditiously before taking any further action in the matter. In that respect learned S.D.J.M. shall hear learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. In the event petitioner shall not give consent for a T.I. parade, then if the Courts below will allow the petitioner to go on bail then such bail order should be accompanied with a condition for his personal appearance in the trial Court on each date of trial so that the victim and witnesses shall be in a position to identify if he was one of the culprits.

With the said observation, the Criminal Misc. Case stands dismissed.

Same Court & Year Orissa · 2002 Same Parties Y. Phanikumar vs State of Orissa Same Subject Criminal Same Judge P.K. Tripathy, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 397, 397(...

Criminal