Kruttibas Rup 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. - .....orderp.k. tripathy, j.1. heard.2. in this application under section 482, cr.p.c. petitioner prays to quash the order of cognizance under sections 509/506. i.p.c. in g.r. case no. 2068 of 1997 of the court of s.d.j.m., bhubaneswar.3. admittedly, petitioner is the accused in the said case. that case was initiated on the basis on the f.i.r. lodged by one mrs. swapna mohanty, the then assistant secretary, orissa state board of pharmacy under the drugs controller of orissa, bhubaneswar.4. it reveals from the case diary that the admitted case of the parties is that on the date of the occurrence i.e. on 17.7.1997 petitioner was the deputy drugs controller (intelligence) and member-secretary of o.s.b.p., bhubaneswar. when he wanted to assume charge the outgoing member-secretary and the present informant did not cooperate with him in respect of taking charge of the examination papers etc., and because of that misunderstanding there were certain development happened in the office as a result of which petitioner put an additional lock in a particular room occupied by the informant and that gave rise to the dispute. though in the f.i.r. the informant alleged about indecency shown to her by the petitioner, but during the course of investigation the investigating officer found that none of the colleagues of the parties made an such allegation of indecency shown by the petitioner. under such circumstance, a final form was submitted. but on perusal of the materials and particularly the statement of the informant, learned s.d.j.m. took cognizance of the offence under sections 509/506. i.p.c.5. regard being had to the ingredients of the aforesaid two offences, this court finds absence of requirement of law in- as much as there was nothing on record to satisfy the ingredients of section 506, i.p.c. to the effect that petitioner compelled the informant to do something which he was legally not required to do or prevented her from doing something which she was legally entitled to do.....