Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-19-2006
Reported in : 2007(1)OLR184
ORDERPradip Mohanty, J.1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been implicated in11(a) C.C. No. 255 of 2006 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Koraput for the alleged commission of offence under Section 47(a) of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act (for short 'the Act'). It is alleged that on 09.07.2006 at 6.00 p.m. the S.I. of Excise, Pottangi along with other staff, while conducting patrol duty, found the petitioner selling I.D. liquor. On being asked, he failed to produce any licence or authority for the same. Therefore, the S.I. of Excise seized the I.D. liquor (10 litres in quantity) contained in a plastic jerry can, prepared seizure list, arrested the accused-petitioner and forwarded him to the Court.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel.3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Koraput has illegally rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner by applying the provisions of the Act as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-13-2006
Reported in : 2007(1)OLR169
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 24 of 2002 rejecting the application to recall P.Ws. 1 to 11 for further cross-examination.2. On 14.11.2006 P.W.12 was examined. On the said date an application was filed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before the trial Court to recall the P.Ws.1 to 11 for further cross-examination on the ground that the said witnesses have not been cross-examined on fact as well as legal aspect. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner further cross-examination of the said witnesses is required for a fair trial and to ensure justice. The effective adjudication of the case can only be made if the said witnesses are recalled for further cross-examination.3. The aforesaid petition was opposed by the C.B.I. Shri S.K. Padhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. submitted that these witnesses we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-01-2006
Reported in : 103(2007)CLT271
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The Petitioners are the accused persons in I.C.C. No. 11 of 1993 pending before the Learned J.M.F.C, Aska. They have filed this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 2.3.2002 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar-Aska in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2002 dismissing the same and confirming the order of the Learned J.M.F.C., Aska dated 10.2.1995 framing charge for commission of offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The case of the Complainant-Opposite party No. 1 is that the Petitioner and two others are the Officers of the Public Welfare Department. An agreement was executed between the Complainant and the Petitioner for construction of a fair-weather road. In terms of the agreement, it is alleged that the Complainant executed the work. It is further alleged that on 26.12.1 990 the Petitioner called the Complainant and sought for help stating that unless the Complainant arranged Rs. 25,000/- t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-15-2006
Reported in : 2007(I)OLR128
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Kamakhyanagar in S.T. No. 76-D of 1998/18 of 1998 convicting the appellant under Sections 457/376, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months and R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month respectively.2. Prosecution case in brief is that in the night of 12.10.1997 while the victim lady (P.W. 4) was sleeping inside her house at village-Kanakhai with her child, the appellant trespassed into the room at about midnight and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. On arrival of her husband in the following morning the victim lady narrated the incident and both the husband and wife went to Bhuban Police Station where they lodged a report, Ext. 5. Basing on this report a case was registered under Sections 457 and 376, I.P.C, investigation was conducted d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-10-2006
Reported in : 2007(I)OLR64
L. Mohapatra, J.1. Relief claimed in both the writ applications being same, both cases were heard together.2. In W.P.(CRL) No. 267 of 2006, the petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company and petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of the said company. In W.P.(CRL) No. 268 of 2006, the petitioner is an employee of the petitioner No. 1 - company in W.P.(CRL) No. 267 of 2006. Both the writ applications have been filed for the following reliefs:(i) F.I.R. No. 101/2006 dated 20.5.2006 registered in Nahan Police Station in the district of Sirmour in the State of Himachal Pradesh be quashed;(ii) A declaration be made that Nahan Police Station has no territorial jurisdiction to register and investigate into the F.I.R. lodged by one Rajkumar Saini, Managing Director, M/s. Saboo Ispat Pvt. Limited-opp Party No. 6; and(iii) To restrain Nahan Police Station in the State of Himachal Pradesh from investigating into the F.I.R. and also for quashing the notice in Annexure-6 sent by the In-charge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-08-2006
Reported in : 2007CriLJ958; 2007(I)OLR109
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Both the aforesaid applications have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail.2. The petitioner in BLAPL No. 4575 of 2006, namely, Bimal Kumar Khetan, was the husband of deceased Manisha while the petitioner in BLAPL No. 4185 of 2006 was the brother-in-law (husband's brother) of the said deceased. The aforesaid Bail Applications had earlier been disposed of by order of this Court dated 11.6.2006. Thereafter the informant moved the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 972 of 2006 arising out of SLP (Cri) No. 3745 of 2006. By judgment dated 18th September, 2006 the Supreme Court allowed the said appeal and directed this Court to reconsider the Bail Applications afresh in consonance with law and keeping in view the principles enumerated in the said judgment and has observed as follows:There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused was charge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-20-2006
Reported in : 103(2007)CLT266; 2007(I)OLR84
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 22.07.2002 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore in S.T. Case No. 103/163 of 2000 convicting the appellants under Section 395 and 376(g) IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, on each count; the sentences to run concurrently. Since all the appeals have been filed challenging the same order, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The case of the prosecution is that in the night of 04.07.1999 the informant and his family members, i.e., his wife, two daughters and one son, were sleeping in different rooms of their house. At about 11 p.m. to 12 p.m., some unknown persons by abusing him in filthy language knocked at his door. Out of fear, he opened the door and three persons being armed with deadly weapons like B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-21-2006
Reported in : 102(2006)CLT841; 2006(II)OLR597
L. Mohapatra, J.1. All these criminal writ applications involve common question of law and, therefore they are taken up together. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties in the said cases as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel were heard.2. The prayer in all the writ applications are different but since they involve a common question, they have been tagged together.i. in some of the writ applications the grievance is inaction on the part of the police in registering the F.I.R.ii. in some of the writ applications the grievance is that even though the F.I.R. has been registered, investigation is not being taken up.iii. in some of the writ applications the grievance is that though the F.I.R. has been registered, investigation is not being conducted properly.iv. and in some of the writ applications the prayer is for transfer of investigation to some other agency on the ground of improper investigation.3. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the State ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-19-2006
Reported in : 103(2007)CLT36
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. Though this matter has been listed for admission, on the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner, who is accused in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2001 of the Court of Learned Adl. Sessions Judge, Malkangiri for the offence under Sections 306, 304-B, 498-A, IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act failed to appear at the stage of accused statement for a considerable time for which the Learned Trial Court rejected the prayer for adjournment presented by the Learned Counsel for the accused and after hearing the argument on the same day, delivered the judgment, in which he convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 306, 304-B, 498-A. IPC. Since the accused-petitioner was not available for hearing on the matter of sentence, Learned Trial Court issued N.B.W. along with process under Sections 82 and 83, Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and also noticed the bailor to produce the accused-petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-12-2006
Reported in : 2007CriLJ819
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The ICICI Bank conducted auction sale of a tractor and trolley on 30-1-2006. The offer of the petitioner being highest, the same was accepted. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 2,05,000.00 and Rs. 30,000.00 towards the cost of tractor and trolley bearing registration numbers OR-02-AE-2859 and OR-02-AE-2860 respectively and possession thereof was handed over to him. After taking over possession of the tractor and trolley the petitioner, it is submitted, spent an amount of Rs. 1,30,000.00 towards cost of repair thereof and cost of accessories to bring the same in running condition. He also deposited the required Road Tax with the RTO, Bhubaneswar and obtained receipts thereof.2. While matter stood thus, on the basis of a complaint filed by present opposite party No. 2 the aforesaid ICC No. 719/06 was registered in the Court of the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar which was subsequently registered as G.R. Case No. 1100 of 2006. It was alleged that though opposite party No. 2 had ...
Tag this Judgment!