Sudip Kumar Routray Vs. State of Oriasa

Sudip Kumar Routray vs State of Oriasa

Type Court Judgment Court Orissa Decided Nov 05, 2008

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/537009

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/537009
Court: Orissa High Court
Judge: B.K. Patel, J.
Decided On: Nov 05, 2008
Subject: Criminal

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

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sudip Kumar Routray

Respondent

State of Oriasa

Legal References

Cases Referred: Sundarbhai Ambala Deaal v. State of Gujarat
Reported In: 107(2009)CLT463; 2009(I)OLR196

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. - ..........was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the motorcycle is liable to be confiscated upon enquiry and trial, it ought to be kept in safe custody in order to ensure maintenance and care.3. having heard from both sides and taking into account the principles indicated in the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the ratio of the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in sundarbhai ambala deaal v. state of gujarat reported in (2003)24 ocr 444, learned judge,special court, angul is directed to release the above said motorcycle in the interim custody of the owner of the vehicle on furnishing property eecurity of rs. 40,000/- (rupees lofty thousand) and cash security of rs. 10,000/ to the satisfaction of that court subject to further conditions that the petitioner shall undertake(i) not to transfer the vehicle and to produce it before the court or any authority as and when required;(ii) not to change colour chassis number or englno number of the motorcycle; and(iii) not to allow the vehicle to be used for any unlawful purpose.4. before deivelng interim custody of the motor cycle to the petitloner, a copy of the registration certificate of the motorcycle and at least colour photographs from different angles clearly making the motor cycle identifiable, to be furnished by the petitioner at his expenses, be kept on record.5. the crlrev is, accordingly, disposed of.6. urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. In this revision the petitioner assails the legality of the order dated 4.2.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Angul in Special Case No. 8 of 2007 rejecting the application filed under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of Honda Unicorn motorcycle bearing registration No. OR-19E-1367.

2. It appears that the petitioner's father accused Pradeep Kumar Routray has been charge sheeted for commission of offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act for having allegedly found to be .transporting 3 kg. 600 gms. of ganja in an Air bag in the above said motorcycle on 15.12.2007. The petitioner does not appear to have been implicated in any manner in commission of the alleged offence, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the motorcycle, registration in respect of which stands in the name of the petitioner, having been left lying open and unattended, exposeo to the vagaries of nature, in the police station, shall be subjected to deterioration unless taken care of. It was urged that as the petitioner is entitled to possession thereof, the motorcycle should be released in his interim custody pending disposal of the proceeding before the learned Judge, Special Court. Relying on the decisions of this Court in Abhaya Kumar Satpathy v. State of Orissa reported in (2002) 22 OCR 362; Ganesh Chandra Nayak v. State of Orissa, 2003 (Supp.) OLR 296 reported in , and 2003 (Supp.) OLR 860 Balakrushna Das v. State of Orissa reported in (2004) 27 OCR 17, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even if the motorcycle is liable to be confiscated upon enquiry and trial, it ought to be kept in safe custody in order to ensure maintenance and care.

3. Having heard from both sides and taking into account the principles indicated in the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sundarbhai Ambala Deaal v. State of Gujarat reported in (2003)24 OCR 444, learned Judge,Special Court, Angul is directed to release the above said motorcycle in the interim custody of the owner of the vehicle on furnishing property eecurity of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees lofty thousand) and cash security of Rs. 10,000/ to the satisfaction of that Court subject to further conditions that the petitioner shall undertake

(i) not to transfer the vehicle and to produce it before the Court or any authority as and when required;

(ii) not to change colour chassis number or englno number of the motorcycle; and

(iii) not to allow the vehicle to be used for any unlawful purpose.

4. Before deivelng interim custody of the motor cycle to the petitloner, a copy of the Registration Certificate of the motorcycle and at least colour photographs from different angles clearly making the motor cycle identifiable, to be furnished by the petitioner at his expenses, be kept on record.

5. The CRLREV is, accordingly, disposed of.

6. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.

Same Court & Year Orissa · 2008 Same Parties Sudip Kumar Routray vs State of Oriasa Same Subject Criminal Same Judge B.K. Patel, J.

Criminal