Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- 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 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

orderpradip mohanty, j.1. this criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the additional sessions judge, bhawanipatna in s. c. no. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine p.w. 3 under section 154 of the evidence act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.2. the petitioner is facing trial under sections 302/304-b/498-a, ipc and section 4 of the d. p. act. after examination and cross-examination of p.w. 3, the p. p. filed a petition under section 154 of the evidence act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. the trial court after considering the said petition under section 154 of the evidence act declared p.w. 3 hostile. thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.3. mr. panda,.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

Pradip Mohanty, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536358',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536358',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536358 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536358',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Jain',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original 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. 
 -  7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-04-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.</p><p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.</p><p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.</p><p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .</p><p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).</p><p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:</p><p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.</p><p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.</p><p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.</p><p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008CriLJ4472',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536358',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536358/rajesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Pradip Mohanty, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new facts from the mouth of the P.W. 3. He further submits that once a witness is examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence, he should not be permitted to be recalled. By permitting the prosecution to put leading question to a witness after his cross-examination was over, the very purpose of examination of the witness has been frustrated.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by it by declaring P.W. 3 hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and allowing the prosecution to put leading questions to the said witness. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in declaring P.W. 3 hostile to the prosecution, since during his examination-in-chief though he stuck to his statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during cross-examination he introduced a new story in order to favour the adverse party. He also submitted that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was filed when P.W. 3 was still in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court went wrong in allowing such a petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel for the parties relied upon the decision in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. : 1959CriLJ1231 , Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav : 2002CriLJ3236 .',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Perused the petition and the decisions cited by the parties. The main point to be considered is whether the Court can allow a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act filed by the prosecution after cross-examination of a witness by the defence when he supported the prosecution case in his chief. In Tahasildar Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the construction and interpretation of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. After taking into consideration the ratio decided in Tahasildar Singh's case, the Apex Court has decided in Dayabhai's case (supra) that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination at any stage of examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. Similar view has been taken in Lalu Prasad's case (supra).',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 154 of the Evidence Act read as follows:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>154. Question by party to his own witness :- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under Sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that discretion lies with the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. In the instant case, P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution who in his examination-in-chief stuck to his earlier version made before the police. However, during his cross-examination by defence, he came out with a different story favouring the accused. Therefore, while the witness was still in the witness box, the prosecution filed the petition under Section 154 of Evidence Act which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined the witness whereafter he was also cross-examined by the defence.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Criminal
Court	Orissa High Court
Decided On	Apr-09-2008
Judge	Pradip Mohanty, J.
Reported in	2008CriLJ4472
Appellant	Rajesh Kumar Jain
Respondent	State of Orissa
Disposition	Petition dismissed
Cases Referred	and State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad Yadav

Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment