Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Nrusingha Charan Jena Vs. State of Orissa
Decided On : Nov-14-2007
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' => 'Nrusingha Charan Jena Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 205', (int) 1 => 'Section 205', (int) 2 => 'Section 205' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Biswal', (int) 1 => 'Learned Counsel', (int) 2 => 'Xerox', (int) 3 => 'Shashan Medical Hall', (int) 4 => 'Cardiology Department', (int) 5 => 'S.C.B. Medical College and', (int) 6 => 'Sections 418/419/467/477A/409 of I.P.C.', (int) 7 => 'Court', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Bhubaneswar', (int) 11 => 'the Court of J.M.F.C. Khariar.4', (int) 12 => 'CRLMC', (int) 13 => 'CRLMC' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '9.8.2007', (int) 1 => '261', (int) 2 => '150/100', (int) 3 => 'more than one', (int) 4 => 'more than 400', (int) 5 => '9.8.2007' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.M.F.C.', (int) 1 => 'Khariar', (int) 2 => 'G.R.', (int) 3 => 'K.Ms', (int) 4 => 'Cr', (int) 5 => 'P.C.', (int) 6 => 'J.M.F.C.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2002', (int) 1 => '10.11.2007' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bhubaneswar', (int) 1 => 'Cuttack', (int) 2 => 'G.R. Case', (int) 3 => 'Khariar' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '536074', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Nrusingha Charan Jena', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Nrusingha Charan Jena 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. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-11-14', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' R.N. Biswal, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Even though the case was listed to date for admission, on consent of learned Counsel for both parties, the case is taken up for final disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.8.2007 passed by the J.M.F.C., Khariar in G.R. Case No. 261 of 2002 wherein he refused to allow the petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a cardiac patient and he suffers from hypertension also. In support of his submission he filed the attested Xerox copy of the medical report of Shashan Medical Hall, Bhubaneswar showing that his blood pressure was 150/100 on 10.11.2007. He also filed another medical report of Cardiology Department of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, wherein he was advised to undergo treadmill test and on undertaking that test it was found that he was suffering from heart ailment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under Sections 418/419/467/477A/409 of I.P.C. The trial Court rejected the petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner was alleged to have misappropriated more than one crore of rupees. No doubt, it is the discretion of the Court to grant or otherwise the prayer made under Section 205 of Cr.P.C, but the discretion should be exercised judiciously. When the petitioner is suffering from severe hypertension and heart ailment, instead of rejecting the petition the Court below ought to have allowed, it, particularly as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, when the petitioner resides at Bhubaneswar which is at a distance of more than 400 K.Ms. from the Court of J.M.F.C. Khariar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Therefore, the CRLMC is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.8.2007 as passed in the aforesaid G.R. Case by the J.M.F.C, Khariar is set aside. Personal attendance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he is permitted to appear through his counsel under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. in the aforesaid case. However, it is made clear that when personal attendance of the petitioner would be felt necessary, the J.M.F.C. may direct him to appear in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is disposed of accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT300; 2008(I)OLR13', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '536074' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Nrusingha Charan Jena Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 205', (int) 1 => 'Section 205', (int) 2 => 'Section 205' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Biswal', (int) 1 => 'Learned Counsel', (int) 2 => 'Xerox', (int) 3 => 'Shashan Medical Hall', (int) 4 => 'Cardiology Department', (int) 5 => 'S.C.B. Medical College and', (int) 6 => 'Sections 418/419/467/477A/409 of I.P.C.', (int) 7 => 'Court', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Bhubaneswar', (int) 11 => 'the Court of J.M.F.C. Khariar.4', (int) 12 => 'CRLMC', (int) 13 => 'CRLMC' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '9.8.2007', (int) 1 => '261', (int) 2 => '150/100', (int) 3 => 'more than one', (int) 4 => 'more than 400', (int) 5 => '9.8.2007' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.M.F.C.', (int) 1 => 'Khariar', (int) 2 => 'G.R.', (int) 3 => 'K.Ms', (int) 4 => 'Cr', (int) 5 => 'P.C.', (int) 6 => 'J.M.F.C.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2002', (int) 1 => '10.11.2007' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bhubaneswar', (int) 1 => 'Cuttack', (int) 2 => 'G.R. Case', (int) 3 => 'Khariar' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '536074', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Nrusingha Charan Jena', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Nrusingha Charan Jena 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. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-11-14', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' R.N. Biswal, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Even though the case was listed to date for admission, on consent of learned Counsel for both parties, the case is taken up for final disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.8.2007 passed by the J.M.F.C., Khariar in G.R. Case No. 261 of 2002 wherein he refused to allow the petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a cardiac patient and he suffers from hypertension also. In support of his submission he filed the attested Xerox copy of the medical report of Shashan Medical Hall, Bhubaneswar showing that his blood pressure was 150/100 on 10.11.2007. He also filed another medical report of Cardiology Department of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, wherein he was advised to undergo treadmill test and on undertaking that test it was found that he was suffering from heart ailment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under Sections 418/419/467/477A/409 of I.P.C. The trial Court rejected the petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner was alleged to have misappropriated more than one crore of rupees. No doubt, it is the discretion of the Court to grant or otherwise the prayer made under Section 205 of Cr.P.C, but the discretion should be exercised judiciously. When the petitioner is suffering from severe hypertension and heart ailment, instead of rejecting the petition the Court below ought to have allowed, it, particularly as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, when the petitioner resides at Bhubaneswar which is at a distance of more than 400 K.Ms. from the Court of J.M.F.C. Khariar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Therefore, the CRLMC is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.8.2007 as passed in the aforesaid G.R. Case by the J.M.F.C, Khariar is set aside. Personal attendance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he is permitted to appear through his counsel under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. in the aforesaid case. However, it is made clear that when personal attendance of the petitioner would be felt necessary, the J.M.F.C. may direct him to appear in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is disposed of accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT300; 2008(I)OLR13', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '536074' ) $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' => 'Nrusingha Charan Jena Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 205', (int) 1 => 'Section 205', (int) 2 => 'Section 205' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Biswal', (int) 1 => 'Learned Counsel', (int) 2 => 'Xerox', (int) 3 => 'Shashan Medical Hall', (int) 4 => 'Cardiology Department', (int) 5 => 'S.C.B. Medical College and', (int) 6 => 'Sections 418/419/467/477A/409 of I.P.C.', (int) 7 => 'Court', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Bhubaneswar', (int) 11 => 'the Court of J.M.F.C. Khariar.4', (int) 12 => 'CRLMC', (int) 13 => 'CRLMC' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '9.8.2007', (int) 1 => '261', (int) 2 => '150/100', (int) 3 => 'more than one', (int) 4 => 'more than 400', (int) 5 => '9.8.2007' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.M.F.C.', (int) 1 => 'Khariar', (int) 2 => 'G.R.', (int) 3 => 'K.Ms', (int) 4 => 'Cr', (int) 5 => 'P.C.', (int) 6 => 'J.M.F.C.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2002', (int) 1 => '10.11.2007' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bhubaneswar', (int) 1 => 'Cuttack', (int) 2 => 'G.R. Case', (int) 3 => 'Khariar' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '536074', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Nrusingha Charan Jena', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Nrusingha Charan Jena 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. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-11-14', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' R.N. Biswal, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Even though the case was listed to date for admission, on consent of learned Counsel for both parties, the case is taken up for final disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.8.2007 passed by the J.M.F.C., Khariar in G.R. Case No. 261 of 2002 wherein he refused to allow the petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a cardiac patient and he suffers from hypertension also. In support of his submission he filed the attested Xerox copy of the medical report of Shashan Medical Hall, Bhubaneswar showing that his blood pressure was 150/100 on 10.11.2007. He also filed another medical report of Cardiology Department of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, wherein he was advised to undergo treadmill test and on undertaking that test it was found that he was suffering from heart ailment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under Sections 418/419/467/477A/409 of I.P.C. The trial Court rejected the petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner was alleged to have misappropriated more than one crore of rupees. No doubt, it is the discretion of the Court to grant or otherwise the prayer made under Section 205 of Cr.P.C, but the discretion should be exercised judiciously. When the petitioner is suffering from severe hypertension and heart ailment, instead of rejecting the petition the Court below ought to have allowed, it, particularly as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, when the petitioner resides at Bhubaneswar which is at a distance of more than 400 K.Ms. from the Court of J.M.F.C. Khariar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Therefore, the CRLMC is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.8.2007 as passed in the aforesaid G.R. Case by the J.M.F.C, Khariar is set aside. Personal attendance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he is permitted to appear through his counsel under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. in the aforesaid case. However, it is made clear that when personal attendance of the petitioner would be felt necessary, the J.M.F.C. may direct him to appear in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is disposed of accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT300; 2008(I)OLR13', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '536074' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Nrusingha Charan Jena Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 205', (int) 1 => 'Section 205', (int) 2 => 'Section 205' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Biswal', (int) 1 => 'Learned Counsel', (int) 2 => 'Xerox', (int) 3 => 'Shashan Medical Hall', (int) 4 => 'Cardiology Department', (int) 5 => 'S.C.B. Medical College and', (int) 6 => 'Sections 418/419/467/477A/409 of I.P.C.', (int) 7 => 'Court', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Bhubaneswar', (int) 11 => 'the Court of J.M.F.C. Khariar.4', (int) 12 => 'CRLMC', (int) 13 => 'CRLMC' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '9.8.2007', (int) 1 => '261', (int) 2 => '150/100', (int) 3 => 'more than one', (int) 4 => 'more than 400', (int) 5 => '9.8.2007' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.M.F.C.', (int) 1 => 'Khariar', (int) 2 => 'G.R.', (int) 3 => 'K.Ms', (int) 4 => 'Cr', (int) 5 => 'P.C.', (int) 6 => 'J.M.F.C.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '2002', (int) 1 => '10.11.2007' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bhubaneswar', (int) 1 => 'Cuttack', (int) 2 => 'G.R. Case', (int) 3 => 'Khariar' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '536074', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Nrusingha Charan Jena', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Nrusingha Charan Jena 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. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-11-14', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' R.N. Biswal, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Even though the case was listed to date for admission, on consent of learned Counsel for both parties, the case is taken up for final disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.8.2007 passed by the J.M.F.C., Khariar in G.R. Case No. 261 of 2002 wherein he refused to allow the petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a cardiac patient and he suffers from hypertension also. In support of his submission he filed the attested Xerox copy of the medical report of Shashan Medical Hall, Bhubaneswar showing that his blood pressure was 150/100 on 10.11.2007. He also filed another medical report of Cardiology Department of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, wherein he was advised to undergo treadmill test and on undertaking that test it was found that he was suffering from heart ailment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under Sections 418/419/467/477A/409 of I.P.C. The trial Court rejected the petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner was alleged to have misappropriated more than one crore of rupees. No doubt, it is the discretion of the Court to grant or otherwise the prayer made under Section 205 of Cr.P.C, but the discretion should be exercised judiciously. When the petitioner is suffering from severe hypertension and heart ailment, instead of rejecting the petition the Court below ought to have allowed, it, particularly as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, when the petitioner resides at Bhubaneswar which is at a distance of more than 400 K.Ms. from the Court of J.M.F.C. Khariar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Therefore, the CRLMC is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.8.2007 as passed in the aforesaid G.R. Case by the J.M.F.C, Khariar is set aside. Personal attendance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he is permitted to appear through his counsel under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. in the aforesaid case. However, it is made clear that when personal attendance of the petitioner would be felt necessary, the J.M.F.C. may direct him to appear in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is disposed of accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT300; 2008(I)OLR13', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '536074' ) $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 205, Section 205, Section 205
ORG: Biswal, Learned Counsel, Xerox, Shashan Medical Hall, Cardiology Department, S.C.B. Medical College and, Sections 418/419/467/477A/409 of I.P.C., Court, Court, Court, Bhubaneswar, the Court of J.M.F.C. Khariar.4, CRLMC, CRLMC
NORP: J.1
CARDINAL: 9.8.2007, 261, 150/100, more than one, more than 400, 9.8.2007
GPE: J.M.F.C., Khariar, G.R., K.Ms, Cr, P.C., J.M.F.C.
DATE: 2002, 10.11.2007
PERSON: Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, G.R. Case, Khariar