Semantic Analysis by spaCy
i.T.C. Limited Vs. State of Orissa
Decided On : Dec-01-2004
Court : Orissa
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'i.T.C. Limited Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 451', (int) 1 => 'Section 451', (int) 2 => 'the Companies Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 160(2', (int) 4 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 451', (int) 6 => 'Section 457', (int) 7 => 'Section 451', (int) 8 => 'Section 451', (int) 9 => 'Section 457', (int) 10 => 'Section 451', (int) 11 => 'Section 457', (int) 12 => 'Section 160(2', (int) 13 => 'the Railways Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Biswal', (int) 1 => 'Executive', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Company', (int) 4 => 'Munger', (int) 5 => 'M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Limited', (int) 6 => 'Munger', (int) 7 => 'Railway Protection Force', (int) 8 => 'State', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'P.C. Procedural', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'Munger', (int) 13 => 'Munger', (int) 14 => 'I.T.C. Limited', (int) 15 => 'Vizaak Branch', (int) 16 => 'Branch', (int) 17 => 'I.T.C. Limited', (int) 18 => 'Indian Roadways Company Limited', (int) 19 => 'Munger', (int) 20 => 'the Indian Roadways Transport Company', (int) 21 => 'Court', (int) 22 => 'Court', (int) 23 => 'Criminal Revision', (int) 24 => 'Indian Roadways Company', (int) 25 => 'the Indian Roadways Company', (int) 26 => 'the Indian Roadways Company', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'J.M.F.C. Khallikote' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '10-11-2004' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.M.F.C.', (int) 1 => 'Cr', (int) 2 => 'P.C.', (int) 3 => 'Cr', (int) 4 => 'P.C.', (int) 5 => 'Kolkata', (int) 6 => 'the State of Bihar', (int) 7 => 'Tirupati', (int) 8 => 'Rambha', (int) 9 => 'Cr', (int) 10 => 'P.C.', (int) 11 => 'Cr', (int) 12 => 'P.C.', (int) 13 => 'Cr', (int) 14 => 'Cr', (int) 15 => 'P.C.', (int) 16 => 'Cr', (int) 17 => 'P.C.', (int) 18 => 'Cr', (int) 19 => 'P.C.', (int) 20 => 'Cr', (int) 21 => 'P.C.', (int) 22 => 'Tirupati', (int) 23 => 'Tirupati', (int) 24 => 'J.M.F.C.', (int) 25 => 'Khallikote' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Khallikote', (int) 1 => 'Misc', (int) 2 => 'Ritobrata Chakravorty', (int) 3 => 'Chakravorty' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '83', (int) 1 => '2(C', (int) 2 => '400', (int) 3 => 'One', (int) 4 => '400', (int) 5 => '400', (int) 6 => '400', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '2', (int) 9 => '400', (int) 10 => '785', (int) 11 => '50,00,000/-' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2004', (int) 1 => '1956', (int) 2 => '4-9-2005', (int) 3 => '1989', (int) 4 => '4-10-2004', (int) 5 => '4-9-2004', (int) 6 => '2004', (int) 7 => '1988', (int) 8 => 'five years', (int) 9 => 'five years', (int) 10 => '8-10-2004', (int) 11 => 'about one and half months', (int) 12 => '10-11-2004' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Jawaharlal Nehru Road' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535101', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51006/companies-act-1956-complete-act">Companies Act, 1956</a>; <a href="/act/50914/railways-act-1989-complete-act">Railways Act, 1989</a> - Sections 160(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 451 and 457', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Misc. No. 787 of 2004', 'appellant' => 'i.T.C. Limited', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'i.T.C. Limited Vs. State of Orissa', 'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b) Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'S.P. Sarangi, ;B. Ch. Mohanty, ;P.P. Mohanty, ;D.K. Das and ;P.K. Dash, Advs.', 'counseldef' => 'Addl. Standing Counsel', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2004-12-01', 'deposition' => 'Revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.N. Biswal, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this revision the petitioner has assailed the legality and propriety of the order 10-11-2004 passed by the J.M.F.C., Khallikote in Misc. Case No. 83 of 2004 arising out of 2(C) CC case No. 7/2004 wherein he rejected the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner-Company through its Executive, Finance, Mr. Ritobrata Chakravorty filed the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. before the Court below with a prayer to release 400 cartoons of cigarette to the Company or in the alternative release the entire consignment in favour of the transporter M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Limited. As per the case of the petitioner it is a company within the meaning of the <a href="/act/51006/companies-act-1956-complete-act">Companies Act, 1956</a> having its registered office at Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata inter alia engaged in the business of production of cigarette. One of the units of the petitioner-Company situates at Munger in the State of Bihar. On 4-9-2005 the petitioner-Company entrusted 400 cartoons of cigarette to M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Limited one of its authorized transporters to be transported from Munger to Tirupati. While the said goods were being carried in truck bearing No. WB-11 -7775 on the way it was alleged that the vehicle dashed against the railway gate at Rambha. So the truck along with the 400 cartoons of cigarette was seized and a case under Section 160(2) of the <a href="/act/50914/railways-act-1989-complete-act">Railways Act, 1989</a> was registered against the driver of the vehicle on the complaint made by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force. As per the petition the truck along with the 400 cartons of cigarette has been kept in the police station. If the cigarettes are allowed to be kept there any further then the flavor of the cigarette would be reduced and the same would be decayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No objection was filed on behalf of the State. Learned J.M.F.C. Khallikote after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner rejected the petition holding mainly that there is no sufficient material to hold that Mr. Chakravorty is entitled to the possession of the seized cigarette. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Admittedly the seized goods had not been produced before the trial Court and no enquiry or trial had commenced by the time the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. was filed before it. So, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requested that to do complete justice to the parties the petition should be treated as a petition under Section 457, Cr.P.C. instead of one under Section 451, Cr.P.C. Procedural law is not an obstruction but an aid to justice. However, where non-compliance of the procedure would prejudice in doing justice to parties, the rule is mandatory. In the present case if the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. is treated as one under Section 457, Cr.P.C. it would not prejudice either of the parties. Hence, the petition filed under Section 451, Cr.P.C. before the Court below is treated as a petition under Section 457, Cr.P.C. As per the petition there is a unit of the petitioner -Company at Munger. The copy of the consignment note (Annexure-1) and copies of the road challans (Annexure 2 series) show that 400 cartons of cigarettes were loaded on 4-10-2004 at Munger on the aforesaid truck to be delivered at Tirupati. Shri Chakravorty said to be the Finance Executive of I.T.C. Limited, Vizaak Branch, has been authorized by the Branch Manager to collect the stocks of I.T.C. Limited which was entrusted to Indian Roadways Company Limited for transportation from Munger to deliver at Tirupati under invoice No. 85110725, dated 4-9-2004 in truck No. WB-11-7775.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is not out of place to mention here that the Indian Roadways Transport Company had also filed a petition before the Court below for release of the seized cigarette in its favour and when it was rejected preferred a revision before this Court vide Criminal Revision No. 785 of 2004. A memo was filed on behalf of the counsel engaged by the said Company not to press that revision and as such the same was dismissed as not pressed. So it appears that Indian Roadways Company has no objection if the seized cigarettes are released in favour of the present petitioner. In the case at hand as mentioned earlier the alternative prayer of the petitioner is to release the seized cigarette in favour of the Indian Roadways Company. There is no other rival claimant to the said goods.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Admittedly the offence alleged to have been committed is under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act, 1988, which reads as follows :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If any person breaks any gate or chain or barrier set up on either side of a level crossing which is closed to road traffic, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the driver who has been arrayed as the sole accused is found guilty under the said section, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to five years. Neither the Indian Roadways Company nor the petitioner-Company shall in any way be liable for the offence. Retention of the. cigarette in police custody would no way help the prosecution. It is not a case where the seized cigarette will be liable for confiscation. Admittedly the goods have been seized on 8-10-2004. In the meantime near about one and half months have already been elapsed. If the same is continued to be kept in a stranded truck naturally the flavor thereof would vanish and the same would be decayed. So in my view the trial Court ought to have released the seized cigarette subject to furnishing security. The cost of the seized cigarette as found from the record is Rs. 47,05,674/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, the criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 10-11-2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Khallikote is set aside. The seized cigarette shall be released in favour of the petitioner on furnishing bank security of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the J.M.F.C., Khallikote. Since the cigarettes are susceptible to decay, petitioner-Company is at liberty to dispose of the same.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1582; 2005(I)OLR122', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa', 'sub' => 'Criminal;Company', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '535101' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'i.T.C. Limited Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 451', (int) 1 => 'Section 451', (int) 2 => 'the Companies Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 160(2', (int) 4 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 451', (int) 6 => 'Section 457', (int) 7 => 'Section 451', (int) 8 => 'Section 451', (int) 9 => 'Section 457', (int) 10 => 'Section 451', (int) 11 => 'Section 457', (int) 12 => 'Section 160(2', (int) 13 => 'the Railways Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Biswal', (int) 1 => 'Executive', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Company', (int) 4 => 'Munger', (int) 5 => 'M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Limited', (int) 6 => 'Munger', (int) 7 => 'Railway Protection Force', (int) 8 => 'State', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'P.C. Procedural', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'Munger', (int) 13 => 'Munger', (int) 14 => 'I.T.C. Limited', (int) 15 => 'Vizaak Branch', (int) 16 => 'Branch', (int) 17 => 'I.T.C. Limited', (int) 18 => 'Indian Roadways Company Limited', (int) 19 => 'Munger', (int) 20 => 'the Indian Roadways Transport Company', (int) 21 => 'Court', (int) 22 => 'Court', (int) 23 => 'Criminal Revision', (int) 24 => 'Indian Roadways Company', (int) 25 => 'the Indian Roadways Company', (int) 26 => 'the Indian Roadways Company', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'J.M.F.C. Khallikote' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '10-11-2004' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.M.F.C.', (int) 1 => 'Cr', (int) 2 => 'P.C.', (int) 3 => 'Cr', (int) 4 => 'P.C.', (int) 5 => 'Kolkata', (int) 6 => 'the State of Bihar', (int) 7 => 'Tirupati', (int) 8 => 'Rambha', (int) 9 => 'Cr', (int) 10 => 'P.C.', (int) 11 => 'Cr', (int) 12 => 'P.C.', (int) 13 => 'Cr', (int) 14 => 'Cr', (int) 15 => 'P.C.', (int) 16 => 'Cr', (int) 17 => 'P.C.', (int) 18 => 'Cr', (int) 19 => 'P.C.', (int) 20 => 'Cr', (int) 21 => 'P.C.', (int) 22 => 'Tirupati', (int) 23 => 'Tirupati', (int) 24 => 'J.M.F.C.', (int) 25 => 'Khallikote' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Khallikote', (int) 1 => 'Misc', (int) 2 => 'Ritobrata Chakravorty', (int) 3 => 'Chakravorty' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '83', (int) 1 => '2(C', (int) 2 => '400', (int) 3 => 'One', (int) 4 => '400', (int) 5 => '400', (int) 6 => '400', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '2', (int) 9 => '400', (int) 10 => '785', (int) 11 => '50,00,000/-' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2004', (int) 1 => '1956', (int) 2 => '4-9-2005', (int) 3 => '1989', (int) 4 => '4-10-2004', (int) 5 => '4-9-2004', (int) 6 => '2004', (int) 7 => '1988', (int) 8 => 'five years', (int) 9 => 'five years', (int) 10 => '8-10-2004', (int) 11 => 'about one and half months', (int) 12 => '10-11-2004' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Jawaharlal Nehru Road' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535101', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51006/companies-act-1956-complete-act">Companies Act, 1956</a>; <a href="/act/50914/railways-act-1989-complete-act">Railways Act, 1989</a> - Sections 160(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 451 and 457', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Misc. No. 787 of 2004', 'appellant' => 'i.T.C. Limited', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'i.T.C. Limited Vs. State of Orissa', 'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b) Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'S.P. Sarangi, ;B. Ch. Mohanty, ;P.P. Mohanty, ;D.K. Das and ;P.K. Dash, Advs.', 'counseldef' => 'Addl. Standing Counsel', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2004-12-01', 'deposition' => 'Revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.N. Biswal, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this revision the petitioner has assailed the legality and propriety of the order 10-11-2004 passed by the J.M.F.C., Khallikote in Misc. Case No. 83 of 2004 arising out of 2(C) CC case No. 7/2004 wherein he rejected the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner-Company through its Executive, Finance, Mr. Ritobrata Chakravorty filed the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. before the Court below with a prayer to release 400 cartoons of cigarette to the Company or in the alternative release the entire consignment in favour of the transporter M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Limited. As per the case of the petitioner it is a company within the meaning of the <a href="/act/51006/companies-act-1956-complete-act">Companies Act, 1956</a> having its registered office at Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata inter alia engaged in the business of production of cigarette. One of the units of the petitioner-Company situates at Munger in the State of Bihar. On 4-9-2005 the petitioner-Company entrusted 400 cartoons of cigarette to M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Limited one of its authorized transporters to be transported from Munger to Tirupati. While the said goods were being carried in truck bearing No. WB-11 -7775 on the way it was alleged that the vehicle dashed against the railway gate at Rambha. So the truck along with the 400 cartoons of cigarette was seized and a case under Section 160(2) of the <a href="/act/50914/railways-act-1989-complete-act">Railways Act, 1989</a> was registered against the driver of the vehicle on the complaint made by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force. As per the petition the truck along with the 400 cartons of cigarette has been kept in the police station. If the cigarettes are allowed to be kept there any further then the flavor of the cigarette would be reduced and the same would be decayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No objection was filed on behalf of the State. Learned J.M.F.C. Khallikote after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner rejected the petition holding mainly that there is no sufficient material to hold that Mr. Chakravorty is entitled to the possession of the seized cigarette. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Admittedly the seized goods had not been produced before the trial Court and no enquiry or trial had commenced by the time the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. was filed before it. So, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requested that to do complete justice to the parties the petition should be treated as a petition under Section 457, Cr.P.C. instead of one under Section 451, Cr.P.C. Procedural law is not an obstruction but an aid to justice. However, where non-compliance of the procedure would prejudice in doing justice to parties, the rule is mandatory. In the present case if the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. is treated as one under Section 457, Cr.P.C. it would not prejudice either of the parties. Hence, the petition filed under Section 451, Cr.P.C. before the Court below is treated as a petition under Section 457, Cr.P.C. As per the petition there is a unit of the petitioner -Company at Munger. The copy of the consignment note (Annexure-1) and copies of the road challans (Annexure 2 series) show that 400 cartons of cigarettes were loaded on 4-10-2004 at Munger on the aforesaid truck to be delivered at Tirupati. Shri Chakravorty said to be the Finance Executive of I.T.C. Limited, Vizaak Branch, has been authorized by the Branch Manager to collect the stocks of I.T.C. Limited which was entrusted to Indian Roadways Company Limited for transportation from Munger to deliver at Tirupati under invoice No. 85110725, dated 4-9-2004 in truck No. WB-11-7775.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is not out of place to mention here that the Indian Roadways Transport Company had also filed a petition before the Court below for release of the seized cigarette in its favour and when it was rejected preferred a revision before this Court vide Criminal Revision No. 785 of 2004. A memo was filed on behalf of the counsel engaged by the said Company not to press that revision and as such the same was dismissed as not pressed. So it appears that Indian Roadways Company has no objection if the seized cigarettes are released in favour of the present petitioner. In the case at hand as mentioned earlier the alternative prayer of the petitioner is to release the seized cigarette in favour of the Indian Roadways Company. There is no other rival claimant to the said goods.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Admittedly the offence alleged to have been committed is under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act, 1988, which reads as follows :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If any person breaks any gate or chain or barrier set up on either side of a level crossing which is closed to road traffic, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the driver who has been arrayed as the sole accused is found guilty under the said section, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to five years. Neither the Indian Roadways Company nor the petitioner-Company shall in any way be liable for the offence. Retention of the. cigarette in police custody would no way help the prosecution. It is not a case where the seized cigarette will be liable for confiscation. Admittedly the goods have been seized on 8-10-2004. In the meantime near about one and half months have already been elapsed. If the same is continued to be kept in a stranded truck naturally the flavor thereof would vanish and the same would be decayed. So in my view the trial Court ought to have released the seized cigarette subject to furnishing security. The cost of the seized cigarette as found from the record is Rs. 47,05,674/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, the criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 10-11-2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Khallikote is set aside. The seized cigarette shall be released in favour of the petitioner on furnishing bank security of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the J.M.F.C., Khallikote. Since the cigarettes are susceptible to decay, petitioner-Company is at liberty to dispose of the same.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1582; 2005(I)OLR122', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa', 'sub' => 'Criminal;Company', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '535101' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 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
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'i.T.C. Limited Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 451', (int) 1 => 'Section 451', (int) 2 => 'the Companies Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 160(2', (int) 4 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 451', (int) 6 => 'Section 457', (int) 7 => 'Section 451', (int) 8 => 'Section 451', (int) 9 => 'Section 457', (int) 10 => 'Section 451', (int) 11 => 'Section 457', (int) 12 => 'Section 160(2', (int) 13 => 'the Railways Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Biswal', (int) 1 => 'Executive', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Company', (int) 4 => 'Munger', (int) 5 => 'M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Limited', (int) 6 => 'Munger', (int) 7 => 'Railway Protection Force', (int) 8 => 'State', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'P.C. Procedural', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'Munger', (int) 13 => 'Munger', (int) 14 => 'I.T.C. Limited', (int) 15 => 'Vizaak Branch', (int) 16 => 'Branch', (int) 17 => 'I.T.C. Limited', (int) 18 => 'Indian Roadways Company Limited', (int) 19 => 'Munger', (int) 20 => 'the Indian Roadways Transport Company', (int) 21 => 'Court', (int) 22 => 'Court', (int) 23 => 'Criminal Revision', (int) 24 => 'Indian Roadways Company', (int) 25 => 'the Indian Roadways Company', (int) 26 => 'the Indian Roadways Company', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'J.M.F.C. Khallikote' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '10-11-2004' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.M.F.C.', (int) 1 => 'Cr', (int) 2 => 'P.C.', (int) 3 => 'Cr', (int) 4 => 'P.C.', (int) 5 => 'Kolkata', (int) 6 => 'the State of Bihar', (int) 7 => 'Tirupati', (int) 8 => 'Rambha', (int) 9 => 'Cr', (int) 10 => 'P.C.', (int) 11 => 'Cr', (int) 12 => 'P.C.', (int) 13 => 'Cr', (int) 14 => 'Cr', (int) 15 => 'P.C.', (int) 16 => 'Cr', (int) 17 => 'P.C.', (int) 18 => 'Cr', (int) 19 => 'P.C.', (int) 20 => 'Cr', (int) 21 => 'P.C.', (int) 22 => 'Tirupati', (int) 23 => 'Tirupati', (int) 24 => 'J.M.F.C.', (int) 25 => 'Khallikote' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Khallikote', (int) 1 => 'Misc', (int) 2 => 'Ritobrata Chakravorty', (int) 3 => 'Chakravorty' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '83', (int) 1 => '2(C', (int) 2 => '400', (int) 3 => 'One', (int) 4 => '400', (int) 5 => '400', (int) 6 => '400', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '2', (int) 9 => '400', (int) 10 => '785', (int) 11 => '50,00,000/-' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2004', (int) 1 => '1956', (int) 2 => '4-9-2005', (int) 3 => '1989', (int) 4 => '4-10-2004', (int) 5 => '4-9-2004', (int) 6 => '2004', (int) 7 => '1988', (int) 8 => 'five years', (int) 9 => 'five years', (int) 10 => '8-10-2004', (int) 11 => 'about one and half months', (int) 12 => '10-11-2004' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Jawaharlal Nehru Road' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535101', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51006/companies-act-1956-complete-act">Companies Act, 1956</a>; <a href="/act/50914/railways-act-1989-complete-act">Railways Act, 1989</a> - Sections 160(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 451 and 457', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Misc. No. 787 of 2004', 'appellant' => 'i.T.C. Limited', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'i.T.C. Limited Vs. State of Orissa', 'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b) Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'S.P. Sarangi, ;B. Ch. Mohanty, ;P.P. Mohanty, ;D.K. Das and ;P.K. Dash, Advs.', 'counseldef' => 'Addl. Standing Counsel', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2004-12-01', 'deposition' => 'Revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.N. Biswal, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this revision the petitioner has assailed the legality and propriety of the order 10-11-2004 passed by the J.M.F.C., Khallikote in Misc. Case No. 83 of 2004 arising out of 2(C) CC case No. 7/2004 wherein he rejected the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner-Company through its Executive, Finance, Mr. Ritobrata Chakravorty filed the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. before the Court below with a prayer to release 400 cartoons of cigarette to the Company or in the alternative release the entire consignment in favour of the transporter M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Limited. As per the case of the petitioner it is a company within the meaning of the <a href="/act/51006/companies-act-1956-complete-act">Companies Act, 1956</a> having its registered office at Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata inter alia engaged in the business of production of cigarette. One of the units of the petitioner-Company situates at Munger in the State of Bihar. On 4-9-2005 the petitioner-Company entrusted 400 cartoons of cigarette to M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Limited one of its authorized transporters to be transported from Munger to Tirupati. While the said goods were being carried in truck bearing No. WB-11 -7775 on the way it was alleged that the vehicle dashed against the railway gate at Rambha. So the truck along with the 400 cartoons of cigarette was seized and a case under Section 160(2) of the <a href="/act/50914/railways-act-1989-complete-act">Railways Act, 1989</a> was registered against the driver of the vehicle on the complaint made by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force. As per the petition the truck along with the 400 cartons of cigarette has been kept in the police station. If the cigarettes are allowed to be kept there any further then the flavor of the cigarette would be reduced and the same would be decayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No objection was filed on behalf of the State. Learned J.M.F.C. Khallikote after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner rejected the petition holding mainly that there is no sufficient material to hold that Mr. Chakravorty is entitled to the possession of the seized cigarette. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Admittedly the seized goods had not been produced before the trial Court and no enquiry or trial had commenced by the time the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. was filed before it. So, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requested that to do complete justice to the parties the petition should be treated as a petition under Section 457, Cr.P.C. instead of one under Section 451, Cr.P.C. Procedural law is not an obstruction but an aid to justice. However, where non-compliance of the procedure would prejudice in doing justice to parties, the rule is mandatory. In the present case if the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. is treated as one under Section 457, Cr.P.C. it would not prejudice either of the parties. Hence, the petition filed under Section 451, Cr.P.C. before the Court below is treated as a petition under Section 457, Cr.P.C. As per the petition there is a unit of the petitioner -Company at Munger. The copy of the consignment note (Annexure-1) and copies of the road challans (Annexure 2 series) show that 400 cartons of cigarettes were loaded on 4-10-2004 at Munger on the aforesaid truck to be delivered at Tirupati. Shri Chakravorty said to be the Finance Executive of I.T.C. Limited, Vizaak Branch, has been authorized by the Branch Manager to collect the stocks of I.T.C. Limited which was entrusted to Indian Roadways Company Limited for transportation from Munger to deliver at Tirupati under invoice No. 85110725, dated 4-9-2004 in truck No. WB-11-7775.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is not out of place to mention here that the Indian Roadways Transport Company had also filed a petition before the Court below for release of the seized cigarette in its favour and when it was rejected preferred a revision before this Court vide Criminal Revision No. 785 of 2004. A memo was filed on behalf of the counsel engaged by the said Company not to press that revision and as such the same was dismissed as not pressed. So it appears that Indian Roadways Company has no objection if the seized cigarettes are released in favour of the present petitioner. In the case at hand as mentioned earlier the alternative prayer of the petitioner is to release the seized cigarette in favour of the Indian Roadways Company. There is no other rival claimant to the said goods.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Admittedly the offence alleged to have been committed is under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act, 1988, which reads as follows :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If any person breaks any gate or chain or barrier set up on either side of a level crossing which is closed to road traffic, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the driver who has been arrayed as the sole accused is found guilty under the said section, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to five years. Neither the Indian Roadways Company nor the petitioner-Company shall in any way be liable for the offence. Retention of the. cigarette in police custody would no way help the prosecution. It is not a case where the seized cigarette will be liable for confiscation. Admittedly the goods have been seized on 8-10-2004. In the meantime near about one and half months have already been elapsed. If the same is continued to be kept in a stranded truck naturally the flavor thereof would vanish and the same would be decayed. So in my view the trial Court ought to have released the seized cigarette subject to furnishing security. The cost of the seized cigarette as found from the record is Rs. 47,05,674/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, the criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 10-11-2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Khallikote is set aside. The seized cigarette shall be released in favour of the petitioner on furnishing bank security of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the J.M.F.C., Khallikote. Since the cigarettes are susceptible to decay, petitioner-Company is at liberty to dispose of the same.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1582; 2005(I)OLR122', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa', 'sub' => 'Criminal;Company', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '535101' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'i.T.C. Limited Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 451', (int) 1 => 'Section 451', (int) 2 => 'the Companies Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 160(2', (int) 4 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 451', (int) 6 => 'Section 457', (int) 7 => 'Section 451', (int) 8 => 'Section 451', (int) 9 => 'Section 457', (int) 10 => 'Section 451', (int) 11 => 'Section 457', (int) 12 => 'Section 160(2', (int) 13 => 'the Railways Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Biswal', (int) 1 => 'Executive', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Company', (int) 4 => 'Munger', (int) 5 => 'M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Limited', (int) 6 => 'Munger', (int) 7 => 'Railway Protection Force', (int) 8 => 'State', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'P.C. Procedural', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'Munger', (int) 13 => 'Munger', (int) 14 => 'I.T.C. Limited', (int) 15 => 'Vizaak Branch', (int) 16 => 'Branch', (int) 17 => 'I.T.C. Limited', (int) 18 => 'Indian Roadways Company Limited', (int) 19 => 'Munger', (int) 20 => 'the Indian Roadways Transport Company', (int) 21 => 'Court', (int) 22 => 'Court', (int) 23 => 'Criminal Revision', (int) 24 => 'Indian Roadways Company', (int) 25 => 'the Indian Roadways Company', (int) 26 => 'the Indian Roadways Company', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'J.M.F.C. Khallikote' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '10-11-2004' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.M.F.C.', (int) 1 => 'Cr', (int) 2 => 'P.C.', (int) 3 => 'Cr', (int) 4 => 'P.C.', (int) 5 => 'Kolkata', (int) 6 => 'the State of Bihar', (int) 7 => 'Tirupati', (int) 8 => 'Rambha', (int) 9 => 'Cr', (int) 10 => 'P.C.', (int) 11 => 'Cr', (int) 12 => 'P.C.', (int) 13 => 'Cr', (int) 14 => 'Cr', (int) 15 => 'P.C.', (int) 16 => 'Cr', (int) 17 => 'P.C.', (int) 18 => 'Cr', (int) 19 => 'P.C.', (int) 20 => 'Cr', (int) 21 => 'P.C.', (int) 22 => 'Tirupati', (int) 23 => 'Tirupati', (int) 24 => 'J.M.F.C.', (int) 25 => 'Khallikote' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Khallikote', (int) 1 => 'Misc', (int) 2 => 'Ritobrata Chakravorty', (int) 3 => 'Chakravorty' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '83', (int) 1 => '2(C', (int) 2 => '400', (int) 3 => 'One', (int) 4 => '400', (int) 5 => '400', (int) 6 => '400', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '2', (int) 9 => '400', (int) 10 => '785', (int) 11 => '50,00,000/-' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2004', (int) 1 => '1956', (int) 2 => '4-9-2005', (int) 3 => '1989', (int) 4 => '4-10-2004', (int) 5 => '4-9-2004', (int) 6 => '2004', (int) 7 => '1988', (int) 8 => 'five years', (int) 9 => 'five years', (int) 10 => '8-10-2004', (int) 11 => 'about one and half months', (int) 12 => '10-11-2004' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Jawaharlal Nehru Road' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535101', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51006/companies-act-1956-complete-act">Companies Act, 1956</a>; <a href="/act/50914/railways-act-1989-complete-act">Railways Act, 1989</a> - Sections 160(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 451 and 457', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Misc. No. 787 of 2004', 'appellant' => 'i.T.C. Limited', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'i.T.C. Limited Vs. State of Orissa', 'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b) Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'S.P. Sarangi, ;B. Ch. Mohanty, ;P.P. Mohanty, ;D.K. Das and ;P.K. Dash, Advs.', 'counseldef' => 'Addl. Standing Counsel', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2004-12-01', 'deposition' => 'Revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.N. Biswal, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this revision the petitioner has assailed the legality and propriety of the order 10-11-2004 passed by the J.M.F.C., Khallikote in Misc. Case No. 83 of 2004 arising out of 2(C) CC case No. 7/2004 wherein he rejected the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner-Company through its Executive, Finance, Mr. Ritobrata Chakravorty filed the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. before the Court below with a prayer to release 400 cartoons of cigarette to the Company or in the alternative release the entire consignment in favour of the transporter M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Limited. As per the case of the petitioner it is a company within the meaning of the <a href="/act/51006/companies-act-1956-complete-act">Companies Act, 1956</a> having its registered office at Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata inter alia engaged in the business of production of cigarette. One of the units of the petitioner-Company situates at Munger in the State of Bihar. On 4-9-2005 the petitioner-Company entrusted 400 cartoons of cigarette to M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Limited one of its authorized transporters to be transported from Munger to Tirupati. While the said goods were being carried in truck bearing No. WB-11 -7775 on the way it was alleged that the vehicle dashed against the railway gate at Rambha. So the truck along with the 400 cartoons of cigarette was seized and a case under Section 160(2) of the <a href="/act/50914/railways-act-1989-complete-act">Railways Act, 1989</a> was registered against the driver of the vehicle on the complaint made by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force. As per the petition the truck along with the 400 cartons of cigarette has been kept in the police station. If the cigarettes are allowed to be kept there any further then the flavor of the cigarette would be reduced and the same would be decayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No objection was filed on behalf of the State. Learned J.M.F.C. Khallikote after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner rejected the petition holding mainly that there is no sufficient material to hold that Mr. Chakravorty is entitled to the possession of the seized cigarette. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Admittedly the seized goods had not been produced before the trial Court and no enquiry or trial had commenced by the time the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. was filed before it. So, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requested that to do complete justice to the parties the petition should be treated as a petition under Section 457, Cr.P.C. instead of one under Section 451, Cr.P.C. Procedural law is not an obstruction but an aid to justice. However, where non-compliance of the procedure would prejudice in doing justice to parties, the rule is mandatory. In the present case if the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. is treated as one under Section 457, Cr.P.C. it would not prejudice either of the parties. Hence, the petition filed under Section 451, Cr.P.C. before the Court below is treated as a petition under Section 457, Cr.P.C. As per the petition there is a unit of the petitioner -Company at Munger. The copy of the consignment note (Annexure-1) and copies of the road challans (Annexure 2 series) show that 400 cartons of cigarettes were loaded on 4-10-2004 at Munger on the aforesaid truck to be delivered at Tirupati. Shri Chakravorty said to be the Finance Executive of I.T.C. Limited, Vizaak Branch, has been authorized by the Branch Manager to collect the stocks of I.T.C. Limited which was entrusted to Indian Roadways Company Limited for transportation from Munger to deliver at Tirupati under invoice No. 85110725, dated 4-9-2004 in truck No. WB-11-7775.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is not out of place to mention here that the Indian Roadways Transport Company had also filed a petition before the Court below for release of the seized cigarette in its favour and when it was rejected preferred a revision before this Court vide Criminal Revision No. 785 of 2004. A memo was filed on behalf of the counsel engaged by the said Company not to press that revision and as such the same was dismissed as not pressed. So it appears that Indian Roadways Company has no objection if the seized cigarettes are released in favour of the present petitioner. In the case at hand as mentioned earlier the alternative prayer of the petitioner is to release the seized cigarette in favour of the Indian Roadways Company. There is no other rival claimant to the said goods.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Admittedly the offence alleged to have been committed is under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act, 1988, which reads as follows :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If any person breaks any gate or chain or barrier set up on either side of a level crossing which is closed to road traffic, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the driver who has been arrayed as the sole accused is found guilty under the said section, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to five years. Neither the Indian Roadways Company nor the petitioner-Company shall in any way be liable for the offence. Retention of the. cigarette in police custody would no way help the prosecution. It is not a case where the seized cigarette will be liable for confiscation. Admittedly the goods have been seized on 8-10-2004. In the meantime near about one and half months have already been elapsed. If the same is continued to be kept in a stranded truck naturally the flavor thereof would vanish and the same would be decayed. So in my view the trial Court ought to have released the seized cigarette subject to furnishing security. The cost of the seized cigarette as found from the record is Rs. 47,05,674/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, the criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 10-11-2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Khallikote is set aside. The seized cigarette shall be released in favour of the petitioner on furnishing bank security of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the J.M.F.C., Khallikote. Since the cigarettes are susceptible to decay, petitioner-Company is at liberty to dispose of the same.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1582; 2005(I)OLR122', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa', 'sub' => 'Criminal;Company', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '535101' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 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
LAW: Section 451, Section 451, the Companies Act, Section 160(2, the Railways Act, Section 451, Section 457, Section 451, Section 451, Section 457, Section 451, Section 457, Section 160(2, the Railways Act
ORG: Biswal, Executive, Court, Company, Munger, M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Limited, Munger, Railway Protection Force, State, Court, P.C. Procedural, Court, Munger, Munger, I.T.C. Limited, Vizaak Branch, Branch, I.T.C. Limited, Indian Roadways Company Limited, Munger, the Indian Roadways Transport Company, Court, Court, Criminal Revision, Indian Roadways Company, the Indian Roadways Company, the Indian Roadways Company, Court, J.M.F.C. Khallikote
NORP: J.1
TIME: 10-11-2004
GPE: J.M.F.C., Cr, P.C., Cr, P.C., Kolkata, the State of Bihar, Tirupati, Rambha, Cr, P.C., Cr, P.C., Cr, Cr, P.C., Cr, P.C., Cr, P.C., Cr, P.C., Tirupati, Tirupati, J.M.F.C., Khallikote
PERSON: Khallikote, Misc, Ritobrata Chakravorty, Chakravorty
CARDINAL: 83, 2(C, 400, One, 400, 400, 400, one, 2, 400, 785, 50,00,000/-
DATE: 2004, 1956, 4-9-2005, 1989, 4-10-2004, 4-9-2004, 2004, 1988, five years, five years, 8-10-2004, about one and half months, 10-11-2004
FAC: Jawaharlal Nehru Road