Godabari Sahu Vs. State of Orissa

Decided On : Dec-21-2007

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' => 'Godabari Sahu Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 13(1)(e',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 13(2',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 239 Cr',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 13(1)(e',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 13(2'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Order Dated 04.06.2007',
			(int) 1 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Orissa Road Transport Company',
			(int) 3 => 'the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation',
			(int) 4 => 'Inspector of Police',
			(int) 5 => 'Court',
			(int) 6 => '435/-',
			(int) 7 => 'the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance',
			(int) 8 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 9 => 'Public Servant',
			(int) 10 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 11 => 'Learned Additional Standing Counsel',
			(int) 12 => 'the Vigilance Department',
			(int) 13 => 'O.R.T.',
			(int) 14 => 'O.S.R.T.C',
			(int) 15 => 'Government of Orissa',
			(int) 16 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 17 => '1977CriLJ1606 (State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh',
			(int) 18 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 19 => 'OCR',
			(int) 20 => 'SC',
			(int) 21 => 'Bar',
			(int) 22 => 'FIR',
			(int) 23 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
			(int) 24 => 'Court',
			(int) 25 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 26 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 27 => 'Debendra Nath Padhi's',
			(int) 28 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 29 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 30 => 'the Gazette Notification',
			(int) 31 => 'Court',
			(int) 32 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 33 => 'Trial Court',
			(int) 34 => 'Court',
			(int) 35 => 'the Trial Court'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Berhampur',
			(int) 1 => 'G.R.',
			(int) 2 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 3 => 'it.7'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '02.12.1964',
			(int) 1 => 'June, 1979',
			(int) 2 => '13.08.1990',
			(int) 3 => '87',
			(int) 4 => '72',
			(int) 5 => '14.08.1990',
			(int) 6 => '31.01.1995',
			(int) 7 => '14.08,1990',
			(int) 8 => '1995',
			(int) 9 => 'a year'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'one',
			(int) 1 => '5',
			(int) 2 => '384/-',
			(int) 3 => '1979CriLJ154',
			(int) 4 => '2005(30',
			(int) 5 => '177'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J. Rama',
			(int) 1 => 'Chandra Rao',
			(int) 2 => 'Petitioner',
			(int) 3 => 'The Gazette Notification',
			(int) 4 => 'Kumar Samal',
			(int) 5 => 'Orissa',
			(int) 6 => 'Debendra Nath',
			(int) 7 => 'Berhampur',
			(int) 8 => 'Petitioner'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536679',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Godabari Sahu',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Godabari Sahu 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. 
 -  The Gazette Notification dated 14.08.1990 clearly reveals that the entire organization of the O.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the Order Dated 04.06.2007 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur in G.R. Case No. 2 of 1995 (V) rejecting an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner has been implicated for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Case of the Petitioner is that initially he entered into the service of Orissa Road Transport Company (a private company) as a Lower Division Clerk on 02.12.1964. In June, 1979, he was promoted as a Junior Accountant. On 13.08.1990, the said company was taken over by the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation. Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Public Relation Officer. According to the Petitioner, one J. Rama Chandra Rao, Inspector of Police (Vigilance), who had personal enmity with him, raided his house and office after obtaining search warrant from the Court and ultimately submitted charge sheet showing disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 5, 87, 384/- in his possession without taking into consideration his income from different sources to the tune of Rs. 8, 72, 435/-. As, according to the Petitioner, he is not a public servant, he filed a petition praying for discharge. But, the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance), by the impugned order, rejected the said application, with the finding that there is prima facie case against the Petitioner for being in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the investigation was perfunctory and perverse inasmuch as the Investigation Officer had not taken into account all the legal sources of income of the Petitioner before filing the charge sheet. Moreover, the Petitioner does not come under the purview of Public Servant since originally he is an employee of a private company. It was incumbent upon the Trial Court to verify the legal sources of income of the Petitioner and his plea that he is not public servant. Instead of doing that, it has rejected the application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. which is illegal and arbitrary.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, vehemently contends that the Petitioner is a Government Servant. The Gazette Notification dated 14.08.1990 clearly reveals that the entire organization of the O.R.T. merged with the O.S.R.T.C, a Government of Orissa undertaking with effect from 16.08.1990 and all the employees became the employees of the O.S.R.T.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In support of their respective contentions, both parties relied on different decisions of the Supreme Court. The relevant decisions are : 1977CriLJ1606 (State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh) : 1979CriLJ154 (Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal) and 2005(30) OCR (SC) 177 (State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the records and the decisions cited at the Bar. In the instant case, FIR was registered on 31.01.1995 and after closure of investigation, final form was submitted against the Petitioner. The Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, after perusal of the materials available on record, took cognizance under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Before this Court, some documents have been filed by the Petitioner to show that he had other sources of income besides his salary. It is not known whether those documents were produced before the Investigating Officer, but he did not consider the same. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that those documents, though filed before the Trial Court, were not taken into consideration. But, as per the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra), the accused has no right to produce any document at the stage of framing charge or taking cognizance. At such stages, the Trial Court can only look into the charge sheet documents, which are produced by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, no fault can be found with the Trial Court if it did not take into consideration the documents filed by the Petitioner, if really those were produced before it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As to the submission that the Petitioner does not come under the purview of public servant, the Gazette Notification dated 14.08,1990 speaks otherwise. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission. However, it is open for the Petitioner to raise his plea before the Trial Court by adducing/producing evidence and in the event such plea is raised the Trial Court shall consider and answer the same in accordance with law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the foregoing discussions, this Court does not find any/reason to interfere with the impugned order. As a result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Since the case is dragging on from 1995, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a year.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT252',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Service;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536679'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Godabari Sahu Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 13(1)(e',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 13(2',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 239 Cr',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 13(1)(e',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 13(2'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Order Dated 04.06.2007',
		(int) 1 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Orissa Road Transport Company',
		(int) 3 => 'the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation',
		(int) 4 => 'Inspector of Police',
		(int) 5 => 'Court',
		(int) 6 => '435/-',
		(int) 7 => 'the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance',
		(int) 8 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 9 => 'Public Servant',
		(int) 10 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 11 => 'Learned Additional Standing Counsel',
		(int) 12 => 'the Vigilance Department',
		(int) 13 => 'O.R.T.',
		(int) 14 => 'O.S.R.T.C',
		(int) 15 => 'Government of Orissa',
		(int) 16 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 17 => '1977CriLJ1606 (State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh',
		(int) 18 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 19 => 'OCR',
		(int) 20 => 'SC',
		(int) 21 => 'Bar',
		(int) 22 => 'FIR',
		(int) 23 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
		(int) 24 => 'Court',
		(int) 25 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 26 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 27 => 'Debendra Nath Padhi's',
		(int) 28 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 29 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 30 => 'the Gazette Notification',
		(int) 31 => 'Court',
		(int) 32 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 33 => 'Trial Court',
		(int) 34 => 'Court',
		(int) 35 => 'the Trial Court'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Berhampur',
		(int) 1 => 'G.R.',
		(int) 2 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 3 => 'it.7'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '02.12.1964',
		(int) 1 => 'June, 1979',
		(int) 2 => '13.08.1990',
		(int) 3 => '87',
		(int) 4 => '72',
		(int) 5 => '14.08.1990',
		(int) 6 => '31.01.1995',
		(int) 7 => '14.08,1990',
		(int) 8 => '1995',
		(int) 9 => 'a year'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'one',
		(int) 1 => '5',
		(int) 2 => '384/-',
		(int) 3 => '1979CriLJ154',
		(int) 4 => '2005(30',
		(int) 5 => '177'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J. Rama',
		(int) 1 => 'Chandra Rao',
		(int) 2 => 'Petitioner',
		(int) 3 => 'The Gazette Notification',
		(int) 4 => 'Kumar Samal',
		(int) 5 => 'Orissa',
		(int) 6 => 'Debendra Nath',
		(int) 7 => 'Berhampur',
		(int) 8 => 'Petitioner'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536679',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Godabari Sahu',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Godabari Sahu 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. 
 -  The Gazette Notification dated 14.08.1990 clearly reveals that the entire organization of the O.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the Order Dated 04.06.2007 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur in G.R. Case No. 2 of 1995 (V) rejecting an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner has been implicated for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Case of the Petitioner is that initially he entered into the service of Orissa Road Transport Company (a private company) as a Lower Division Clerk on 02.12.1964. In June, 1979, he was promoted as a Junior Accountant. On 13.08.1990, the said company was taken over by the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation. Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Public Relation Officer. According to the Petitioner, one J. Rama Chandra Rao, Inspector of Police (Vigilance), who had personal enmity with him, raided his house and office after obtaining search warrant from the Court and ultimately submitted charge sheet showing disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 5, 87, 384/- in his possession without taking into consideration his income from different sources to the tune of Rs. 8, 72, 435/-. As, according to the Petitioner, he is not a public servant, he filed a petition praying for discharge. But, the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance), by the impugned order, rejected the said application, with the finding that there is prima facie case against the Petitioner for being in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the investigation was perfunctory and perverse inasmuch as the Investigation Officer had not taken into account all the legal sources of income of the Petitioner before filing the charge sheet. Moreover, the Petitioner does not come under the purview of Public Servant since originally he is an employee of a private company. It was incumbent upon the Trial Court to verify the legal sources of income of the Petitioner and his plea that he is not public servant. Instead of doing that, it has rejected the application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. which is illegal and arbitrary.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, vehemently contends that the Petitioner is a Government Servant. The Gazette Notification dated 14.08.1990 clearly reveals that the entire organization of the O.R.T. merged with the O.S.R.T.C, a Government of Orissa undertaking with effect from 16.08.1990 and all the employees became the employees of the O.S.R.T.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In support of their respective contentions, both parties relied on different decisions of the Supreme Court. The relevant decisions are : 1977CriLJ1606 (State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh) : 1979CriLJ154 (Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal) and 2005(30) OCR (SC) 177 (State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the records and the decisions cited at the Bar. In the instant case, FIR was registered on 31.01.1995 and after closure of investigation, final form was submitted against the Petitioner. The Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, after perusal of the materials available on record, took cognizance under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Before this Court, some documents have been filed by the Petitioner to show that he had other sources of income besides his salary. It is not known whether those documents were produced before the Investigating Officer, but he did not consider the same. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that those documents, though filed before the Trial Court, were not taken into consideration. But, as per the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra), the accused has no right to produce any document at the stage of framing charge or taking cognizance. At such stages, the Trial Court can only look into the charge sheet documents, which are produced by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, no fault can be found with the Trial Court if it did not take into consideration the documents filed by the Petitioner, if really those were produced before it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As to the submission that the Petitioner does not come under the purview of public servant, the Gazette Notification dated 14.08,1990 speaks otherwise. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission. However, it is open for the Petitioner to raise his plea before the Trial Court by adducing/producing evidence and in the event such plea is raised the Trial Court shall consider and answer the same in accordance with law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the foregoing discussions, this Court does not find any/reason to interfere with the impugned order. As a result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Since the case is dragging on from 1995, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a year.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT252',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Service;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536679'
)
$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' => 'Godabari Sahu Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 13(1)(e',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 13(2',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 239 Cr',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 13(1)(e',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 13(2'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Order Dated 04.06.2007',
			(int) 1 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Orissa Road Transport Company',
			(int) 3 => 'the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation',
			(int) 4 => 'Inspector of Police',
			(int) 5 => 'Court',
			(int) 6 => '435/-',
			(int) 7 => 'the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance',
			(int) 8 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 9 => 'Public Servant',
			(int) 10 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 11 => 'Learned Additional Standing Counsel',
			(int) 12 => 'the Vigilance Department',
			(int) 13 => 'O.R.T.',
			(int) 14 => 'O.S.R.T.C',
			(int) 15 => 'Government of Orissa',
			(int) 16 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 17 => '1977CriLJ1606 (State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh',
			(int) 18 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 19 => 'OCR',
			(int) 20 => 'SC',
			(int) 21 => 'Bar',
			(int) 22 => 'FIR',
			(int) 23 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
			(int) 24 => 'Court',
			(int) 25 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 26 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 27 => 'Debendra Nath Padhi's',
			(int) 28 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 29 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 30 => 'the Gazette Notification',
			(int) 31 => 'Court',
			(int) 32 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 33 => 'Trial Court',
			(int) 34 => 'Court',
			(int) 35 => 'the Trial Court'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Berhampur',
			(int) 1 => 'G.R.',
			(int) 2 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 3 => 'it.7'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '02.12.1964',
			(int) 1 => 'June, 1979',
			(int) 2 => '13.08.1990',
			(int) 3 => '87',
			(int) 4 => '72',
			(int) 5 => '14.08.1990',
			(int) 6 => '31.01.1995',
			(int) 7 => '14.08,1990',
			(int) 8 => '1995',
			(int) 9 => 'a year'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'one',
			(int) 1 => '5',
			(int) 2 => '384/-',
			(int) 3 => '1979CriLJ154',
			(int) 4 => '2005(30',
			(int) 5 => '177'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J. Rama',
			(int) 1 => 'Chandra Rao',
			(int) 2 => 'Petitioner',
			(int) 3 => 'The Gazette Notification',
			(int) 4 => 'Kumar Samal',
			(int) 5 => 'Orissa',
			(int) 6 => 'Debendra Nath',
			(int) 7 => 'Berhampur',
			(int) 8 => 'Petitioner'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536679',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Godabari Sahu',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Godabari Sahu 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. 
 -  The Gazette Notification dated 14.08.1990 clearly reveals that the entire organization of the O.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the Order Dated 04.06.2007 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur in G.R. Case No. 2 of 1995 (V) rejecting an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner has been implicated for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Case of the Petitioner is that initially he entered into the service of Orissa Road Transport Company (a private company) as a Lower Division Clerk on 02.12.1964. In June, 1979, he was promoted as a Junior Accountant. On 13.08.1990, the said company was taken over by the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation. Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Public Relation Officer. According to the Petitioner, one J. Rama Chandra Rao, Inspector of Police (Vigilance), who had personal enmity with him, raided his house and office after obtaining search warrant from the Court and ultimately submitted charge sheet showing disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 5, 87, 384/- in his possession without taking into consideration his income from different sources to the tune of Rs. 8, 72, 435/-. As, according to the Petitioner, he is not a public servant, he filed a petition praying for discharge. But, the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance), by the impugned order, rejected the said application, with the finding that there is prima facie case against the Petitioner for being in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the investigation was perfunctory and perverse inasmuch as the Investigation Officer had not taken into account all the legal sources of income of the Petitioner before filing the charge sheet. Moreover, the Petitioner does not come under the purview of Public Servant since originally he is an employee of a private company. It was incumbent upon the Trial Court to verify the legal sources of income of the Petitioner and his plea that he is not public servant. Instead of doing that, it has rejected the application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. which is illegal and arbitrary.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, vehemently contends that the Petitioner is a Government Servant. The Gazette Notification dated 14.08.1990 clearly reveals that the entire organization of the O.R.T. merged with the O.S.R.T.C, a Government of Orissa undertaking with effect from 16.08.1990 and all the employees became the employees of the O.S.R.T.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In support of their respective contentions, both parties relied on different decisions of the Supreme Court. The relevant decisions are : 1977CriLJ1606 (State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh) : 1979CriLJ154 (Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal) and 2005(30) OCR (SC) 177 (State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the records and the decisions cited at the Bar. In the instant case, FIR was registered on 31.01.1995 and after closure of investigation, final form was submitted against the Petitioner. The Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, after perusal of the materials available on record, took cognizance under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Before this Court, some documents have been filed by the Petitioner to show that he had other sources of income besides his salary. It is not known whether those documents were produced before the Investigating Officer, but he did not consider the same. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that those documents, though filed before the Trial Court, were not taken into consideration. But, as per the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra), the accused has no right to produce any document at the stage of framing charge or taking cognizance. At such stages, the Trial Court can only look into the charge sheet documents, which are produced by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, no fault can be found with the Trial Court if it did not take into consideration the documents filed by the Petitioner, if really those were produced before it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As to the submission that the Petitioner does not come under the purview of public servant, the Gazette Notification dated 14.08,1990 speaks otherwise. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission. However, it is open for the Petitioner to raise his plea before the Trial Court by adducing/producing evidence and in the event such plea is raised the Trial Court shall consider and answer the same in accordance with law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the foregoing discussions, this Court does not find any/reason to interfere with the impugned order. As a result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Since the case is dragging on from 1995, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a year.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT252',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Service;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536679'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Godabari Sahu Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 13(1)(e',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 13(2',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 239 Cr',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 13(1)(e',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 13(2'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Order Dated 04.06.2007',
		(int) 1 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Orissa Road Transport Company',
		(int) 3 => 'the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation',
		(int) 4 => 'Inspector of Police',
		(int) 5 => 'Court',
		(int) 6 => '435/-',
		(int) 7 => 'the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance',
		(int) 8 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 9 => 'Public Servant',
		(int) 10 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 11 => 'Learned Additional Standing Counsel',
		(int) 12 => 'the Vigilance Department',
		(int) 13 => 'O.R.T.',
		(int) 14 => 'O.S.R.T.C',
		(int) 15 => 'Government of Orissa',
		(int) 16 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 17 => '1977CriLJ1606 (State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh',
		(int) 18 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 19 => 'OCR',
		(int) 20 => 'SC',
		(int) 21 => 'Bar',
		(int) 22 => 'FIR',
		(int) 23 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
		(int) 24 => 'Court',
		(int) 25 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 26 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 27 => 'Debendra Nath Padhi's',
		(int) 28 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 29 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 30 => 'the Gazette Notification',
		(int) 31 => 'Court',
		(int) 32 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 33 => 'Trial Court',
		(int) 34 => 'Court',
		(int) 35 => 'the Trial Court'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Berhampur',
		(int) 1 => 'G.R.',
		(int) 2 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 3 => 'it.7'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '02.12.1964',
		(int) 1 => 'June, 1979',
		(int) 2 => '13.08.1990',
		(int) 3 => '87',
		(int) 4 => '72',
		(int) 5 => '14.08.1990',
		(int) 6 => '31.01.1995',
		(int) 7 => '14.08,1990',
		(int) 8 => '1995',
		(int) 9 => 'a year'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'one',
		(int) 1 => '5',
		(int) 2 => '384/-',
		(int) 3 => '1979CriLJ154',
		(int) 4 => '2005(30',
		(int) 5 => '177'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J. Rama',
		(int) 1 => 'Chandra Rao',
		(int) 2 => 'Petitioner',
		(int) 3 => 'The Gazette Notification',
		(int) 4 => 'Kumar Samal',
		(int) 5 => 'Orissa',
		(int) 6 => 'Debendra Nath',
		(int) 7 => 'Berhampur',
		(int) 8 => 'Petitioner'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536679',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Godabari Sahu',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Godabari Sahu 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. 
 -  The Gazette Notification dated 14.08.1990 clearly reveals that the entire organization of the O.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Pradip Mohanty, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Pradip Mohanty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the Order Dated 04.06.2007 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur in G.R. Case No. 2 of 1995 (V) rejecting an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner has been implicated for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Case of the Petitioner is that initially he entered into the service of Orissa Road Transport Company (a private company) as a Lower Division Clerk on 02.12.1964. In June, 1979, he was promoted as a Junior Accountant. On 13.08.1990, the said company was taken over by the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation. Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Public Relation Officer. According to the Petitioner, one J. Rama Chandra Rao, Inspector of Police (Vigilance), who had personal enmity with him, raided his house and office after obtaining search warrant from the Court and ultimately submitted charge sheet showing disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 5, 87, 384/- in his possession without taking into consideration his income from different sources to the tune of Rs. 8, 72, 435/-. As, according to the Petitioner, he is not a public servant, he filed a petition praying for discharge. But, the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance), by the impugned order, rejected the said application, with the finding that there is prima facie case against the Petitioner for being in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the investigation was perfunctory and perverse inasmuch as the Investigation Officer had not taken into account all the legal sources of income of the Petitioner before filing the charge sheet. Moreover, the Petitioner does not come under the purview of Public Servant since originally he is an employee of a private company. It was incumbent upon the Trial Court to verify the legal sources of income of the Petitioner and his plea that he is not public servant. Instead of doing that, it has rejected the application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. which is illegal and arbitrary.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, vehemently contends that the Petitioner is a Government Servant. The Gazette Notification dated 14.08.1990 clearly reveals that the entire organization of the O.R.T. merged with the O.S.R.T.C, a Government of Orissa undertaking with effect from 16.08.1990 and all the employees became the employees of the O.S.R.T.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In support of their respective contentions, both parties relied on different decisions of the Supreme Court. The relevant decisions are : 1977CriLJ1606 (State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh) : 1979CriLJ154 (Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal) and 2005(30) OCR (SC) 177 (State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perused the records and the decisions cited at the Bar. In the instant case, FIR was registered on 31.01.1995 and after closure of investigation, final form was submitted against the Petitioner. The Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, after perusal of the materials available on record, took cognizance under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Before this Court, some documents have been filed by the Petitioner to show that he had other sources of income besides his salary. It is not known whether those documents were produced before the Investigating Officer, but he did not consider the same. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that those documents, though filed before the Trial Court, were not taken into consideration. But, as per the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra), the accused has no right to produce any document at the stage of framing charge or taking cognizance. At such stages, the Trial Court can only look into the charge sheet documents, which are produced by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, no fault can be found with the Trial Court if it did not take into consideration the documents filed by the Petitioner, if really those were produced before it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As to the submission that the Petitioner does not come under the purview of public servant, the Gazette Notification dated 14.08,1990 speaks otherwise. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission. However, it is open for the Petitioner to raise his plea before the Trial Court by adducing/producing evidence and in the event such plea is raised the Trial Court shall consider and answer the same in accordance with law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the foregoing discussions, this Court does not find any/reason to interfere with the impugned order. As a result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Since the case is dragging on from 1995, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a year.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT252',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Service;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536679'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - 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 13(1)(e, Section 13(2, Section 239 Cr, Section 13(1)(e, Section 13(2

NORP: J.1

ORG: the Order Dated 04.06.2007, the Prevention of Corruption Act, Orissa Road Transport Company, the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation, Inspector of Police, Court, 435/-, the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance, Learned Counsel, Public Servant, the Trial Court, Learned Additional Standing Counsel, the Vigilance Department, O.R.T., O.S.R.T.C, Government of Orissa, the Supreme Court, 1977CriLJ1606 (State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, Union of India, OCR, SC, Bar, FIR, the Prevention of Corruption Act, Court, the Trial Court, the Supreme Court, Debendra Nath Padhi's, the Trial Court, the Trial Court, the Gazette Notification, Court, the Trial Court, Trial Court, Court, the Trial Court

GPE: Berhampur, G.R., P.C., it.7

DATE: 02.12.1964, June, 1979, 13.08.1990, 87, 72, 14.08.1990, 31.01.1995, 14.08,1990, 1995, a year

CARDINAL: one, 5, 384/-, 1979CriLJ154, 2005(30, 177

PERSON: J. Rama, Chandra Rao, Petitioner, The Gazette Notification, Kumar Samal, Orissa, Debendra Nath, Berhampur, Petitioner