Laxmidhar Behera Vs. State of Orissa

.....or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - as..........in her husband's house where she met the petitioner who is her brother-in-law. it is alleged that the marriage of the son of the informant having been fixed, the petitioner had threatened that if his daughter and son-in-law are invited in the marriage, sridhar will be killed. the day before the marriage the deceased sridhar had left home at about 10.00 p.m. and his dead body was found at about 11.00 p.m. suspecting a hand of the petitioner in death f.i.r. was lodged and accordingly, the petitioner was taken to custody.4. the only material available from the f.i.r. as well as statements of witnesses is that prior to the marriage of the deceased the petitioner had threatened the informant that her son will be killed. if the statement of the co-accused is also taken into consideration, it will be found that at best offence under section 120-b of the indian penal code may be made out against the petitioner. the petitioner has remained in custody since july, 2006 and charge sheet having been submitted, the prayer for bail is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail by the learned s.d.j.m., athagarh in c.t. case no. 239 of 2006 corresponding to tigiria p.s. case no. 60 of 2006 on such terms and conditions as the learned s.d.j.m. may deem just and proper.5. the blapl is disposed of.6. urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.