Tapas Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Orissa

Tapas Kumar Sinha vs State of Orissa

Disposition Application dismissed Court Orissa Decided Nov 23, 2005

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/536284

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/536284
Court: Orissa High Court
Judge: R.N. Biswal, J.
Decided On: Nov 23, 2005
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Case No. 345 of 2005
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 162 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 120B, 166, 418 and 420

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Tapas Kumar Sinha

Advocate Bijaya Nanda Dash,; B.C. Pradhan and; H.K. Hati, Adv

Respondent

State of Orissa

Advocate Addl. Standing Counsel

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 162 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 120B, 166, 418 and 420
Reported In: 2006(1)OLR38

Excerpt

.....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. - ..........f.i.r. lodged on 10.2.2002 would be hit under section 162 of cr.p.c. and as such would not be admissible. the informant has filed dispute case no. 52 of 2000 before registrar, cooperative societies, orissa, against mr. guru prasad kanungo, the petitioner and three others in connection with the subject matter covered under the f.i.r. he further submitted that the fact of availing loan of rupees eight lacks from the co-operative bank, cuttack by the informant is evident from the withdrawal slip dated 13.3.00 and copy of the savings bank ledger of the same date corresponding to a/c no.3853 standing in the name of the informant. so the order of cognizance should be quashed.4. if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against an accused cognizance can be taken and summons can be issued against him. the court is not required to embark upon a roving enquiry about the ultimate success of the prosecution at that stage. that is the function of the trial court. as found from the allegation made against the petitioner and co-accused, they conspired to cheat the informant and cause loss to him. the co-accused being a public servant, instead of protecting the interest of the informant, who is not other than, a customer of the bank cheated him and managed to obtain his signatures in some blank forms in conspiracy with the petitioner. as per the allegation out of the loan sanctioned in favour of informant a sum of rs, 4,83,700/-was adjusted to the account of petitioner clandestinely. pendency of the dispute before the registrar, co-operative society cannot be a ground to thwart the prosecution at the threshold.5. in my view, there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner, for the offence under sections 420/418/166/120-b of i.p.c. and as such the court below has rightly taken cognizance of the same.under such circumstances, the crlmc stands dismissed.

Full Judgment

R.N. Biswal, J.

This CRLMC arises out of a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 11.2.2004 passed by learned S.D.J.M. (S) Cuttack, in G.R. case No. 190 of 2002, arising out of Madhupatna P.S. case No. 30 of 2002, wherein he took cognizance of the offence under Sections 420/418/166/120-B of I.P.C.

1. One Prafulla Kumar Lenka lodged a written report on 10.2.2002 before the I.I.C. of Madhupatna Police Station alleging that he applied for a loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the Branch Manager, Urban Cooperative Bank, Dolamundai Branch, Cuttack. After sanction of the loan, the Branch Manager Guruprasad Kanungo and the petitioner induced him to sign on some blank forms. When he asked for the cash, the Branch Manager told him to avail overdrawal loan facility to meet his requirements. The informant then acted accordingly and availed overdrawal loan facility of Rs. 1,10,723/-. Subsequently, he learnt from some staff of the said bank that the entire loan amount of Rs. 8,00000 has been shown to have been disbursed in his favour; out of which a sum of Rs. 4,83,700/- has been adjusted in the account of the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been kept as fixed deposit. He verified the records and found the same to be correct. On the basis of this report, a case under Sections 420/418/166/120-B of I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner and co-accused, Guru Prasad Karungo. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against them for the said offences. The S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack took cognizance of the offence under Sections 420/418/166/120-B of I.P.C. against the petitioner and Guruprasad Kanungo.

2. Being aggrieved with the order of taking cognizance, the petitioner has filed the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding as mentioned earlier.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as depicted from the F.I.R., On 26.5.2000 the informant had lodged a report in connection with the same allegation before the I.I.C. of Madhupatna P.S. So, the subsequent F.I.R. lodged on 10.2.2002 would be hit under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and as such would not be admissible. The informant has filed dispute case No. 52 of 2000 before Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Orissa, against Mr. Guru Prasad Kanungo, the petitioner and three others in connection with the subject matter covered under the F.I.R. He further submitted that the fact of availing loan of rupees eight lacks from the Co-operative Bank, Cuttack by the informant is evident from the withdrawal slip dated 13.3.00 and copy of the savings bank ledger of the same date corresponding to A/c No.3853 standing in the name of the informant. So the order of cognizance should be quashed.

4. If there are sufficient grounds to proceed against an accused cognizance can be taken and summons can be issued against him. The Court is not required to embark upon a roving enquiry about the ultimate success of the prosecution at that stage. That is the function of the trial Court. As found from the allegation made against the petitioner and co-accused, they conspired to cheat the informant and cause loss to him. The co-accused being a public servant, instead of protecting the interest of the informant, who is not other than, a customer of the bank cheated him and managed to obtain his signatures in some blank forms in conspiracy with the petitioner. As per the allegation out of the loan sanctioned in favour of informant a sum of Rs, 4,83,700/-was adjusted to the account of petitioner clandestinely. Pendency of the dispute before the Registrar, Co-operative Society cannot be a ground to thwart the prosecution at the threshold.

5. In my view, there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner, for the offence under Sections 420/418/166/120-B of I.P.C. and as such the Court below has rightly taken cognizance of the same.

Under such circumstances, the CRLMC stands dismissed.

Same Court & Year Orissa · 2005 Same Parties Tapas Kumar Sinha vs State of Orissa Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.N. Biswal, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 162 and 4...

Criminal