Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1999(II)OLR398
A. Pasayat, Acting C.J.1. From the letter of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri it appears that the appellant Fakira Sahu expired on 19.6.1999. He was convicted for commission of offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') deals with abatement of appeals. It provides that every appeal Under Section 377 or Section 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused. In terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 394 every other appeal under Chapter XXIX of the Code, except an appeal from a sentence of fine shall finally abate on the death of the appellant. It is to be noted here that an appeal against acquittal presented by a complainant Under Section 378(2) however does not abate on the death of the complainant. Every other appeal except on appeal from a sentence of fine abates on the death of the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 81(1996)CLT522; 1996(I)OLR302
A. Pasayat, J. 1. It is stated by Mr. Subrata Ghose on instruction that appellant Pratap alias Pratap Kishore Bisi (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') has breathed his last on 6-6-1995. He was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In Short. 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for fife for the former in S. T. Case No. 127/122 of 1992-93 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. No separate sentence was awarded for the conviction under Section 307, IPC.2. Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, the 'Code') deals with abatement of appeals. It provides that every appeal under Section 377 or Section 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused. In terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 394 every other appeal under Chapter XXIX of the Code, except an appeal from a sentence of fine shall finally abate on the death of the appellant. Every other appeal except an appeal from a sentence of fine aba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1904
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. It was brought to the notice of the Court that Hadibandhu Rana (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') at whose instance I. C. C. No. 257 of 1988, (Trial No. 48 of 1993), was initiated has died. In the said case the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 379, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (in short, 'IPC').2. The question that emerges for consideration is what is the effect of such death and whether the revision application would abate on the death of the complainant. There is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') to meet such contingency. Under Section 394 of the Code every appeal under Section 377 or Section 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused. Every other appeal under Chapter XXIX (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall also finally abate on the death of the appellant, provided that where...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR459
M. Papanna, J.1. Invoking inherent as well as extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner sought for quashing the Charge Sheet dated 9.2.1995 laid by the police against him in G.R.Case No. 2361 of 1994, now subjudice in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar as well as order taking cognizance of offences under Section 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act against him.2. On the accusation made by one Khadala Sahu, to the effect that on 26.7.1994 at 5 P.M. while he was going along C.B.I. Road after selling mixture at D.A.V. School Chhak, an Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. ORO 1141 being driven by its driver came from his backside at a very high speed and dashed against him, as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries on his head for which he was immediately shifted to the City Hospital, Bhubaneswar for his treatment, Capital P.S.Case No. 599 of 1994 was regi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK O.J.C. No.13765 OF 1996 Abdul Rashid . Petitioner -VersusState of Odisha & others . For the petitioner For the opp.parties Opp.Parties None. Mr. R.K.Mohapatra, Government Advocate for O.P.Nos. 1 to 4. BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.K.GOEL THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH Date of hearing : 11.12.2013 Date of Judgment : 11.12.2013 JUDGMENT AND ORDER ( A.K.Goel, CJ.) 1. This petition seeks a direction for an independent enquiry into the death of a child labour beaten to death.2. The case of the petitioner is that on 14.11.1996, one Rajunu Khan was working in a Bidi Company in Seikh Bazar was beaten to death by the owner and died on the spot. The matter was published in the daily newspaper The Samaj. on 18.11.1996. The parents of the deceased are poor and did No.take remedies. The Magistrate conducted the enquiry by getting the deadbody from the grave and found injuries on the deadbody. The deadbody was buried by the owner of the Bidi -2Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1993CriLJ442; 1992(II)OLR395
A. Pasayat, J.1. Even before the ink in certain judgments has become dry, divergence of view has surfaced and doubt regarding their correctness has arisen, relating to certain provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Though only one question was referred to the Full Bench for adjudication, members of the Bar pleaded that several other questions need a fresh look, and therefore, we have primarily considered the following questions :(1) Whether a Court of Session can, during transitional period as provided in Section 36-D of the Act take cognisance of an offence under the Act as a Court of original jurisdiction without the accused being committed to it for trial ?(2) Whether a remand beyond a period of fifteen days as indicated in Section 36-A(1)(b) is permissible ?(3) Whether the conditions in Section 37 of the Act relating to giant of bail override the effect of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003(II)OLR549
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has filed this petition praying to quash the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 1990 confirming an order passed by the S.D.J.M., Hindol in ICC No. 16 of 1990 taking cognizance of an offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.2. According to the petitioner, the alleged commission of offence under Section 500 IPC is levelled against him while he was discharging the duties as an Executive Magistrate being in charge of law and order situation and as such he is protected by the umbrella provided under Section 197 CrPC and unless the impugned order is set aside it will not only prejudice the rights of the petitioner but will also amount to abuse of the process of law.3. To appreciate the backdrop of the factual scenario, it is necessary to state the facts of the case, shorn of unn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : II(2001)DMC550
ORDERR.K. Patra, Actg. C.J.1. Is enforcement of the order of maintenance made under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 anyway affected on coming into force of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights and Divorce) Act, 1986? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this revision filed by a divorced Muslim woman.2. Facts. The petitioner is a divorced woman who married to the opposite party according to the Muslim Law. She filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 253 of 1983 under Section 123 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the opposite party in the Court of S.D.J.M., Sambalpur. By order dated 24.4.1985 the learned Magistrate allowed her case on contest directing the opposite party to pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 160/- per month from 24.4.1985. As the amount was not paid, she filed Execution Case No. 137 of 1990 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Sambalpur for realisation of a sum of Rs. 1,920/- towards maintenance for the period from 30.7.1989 to 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2001CriLJ2396
ORDERR.K. Patra, Actg. C.J. 1. Is enforcement of the order of maintenance made Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 any way affected on coming into force of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, This is the short question that arises for consideration in this revision filed by a divorced Muslim woman.2. FACTS. The petitioner is a divorced woman who married to the opposite party according to the Muslim law. She filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 253 of 1983 Under Section 123 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the opposite party in the Court of S.D.J.M., Sambalpur. By order dated 24-4-1985 the learned Magistrate allowed her case on contest directing the opposite party to pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 160/- per month from 24-4-1985. As the amount was not paid, she filed Execution CaseNo. 137 of 1990 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Sambalpur for realisation of a sum of Rs. 19207- towards maintenance for the period from 30-7-1989 to 30...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2902; 2005(I)OLR234
B.P. Das, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C') with a prayer to quash the proceeding in I.C.C. No. 237 of 2003 pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panposh at Uditnagar as well as the order passed therein taking cognizance against the petitioner of the offence under Sections 294/423/506/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' in short).2. The brief facts giving rise to the present application, as have been stated in the complaint petition, are as follows :O.P. No. 2-Prafulla Kumar Mishra, an advocate of Rourkela Bar, filed the aforesaid complaint case impleading the present petitioner-Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani, the Chairman of Reliance Infocomm, as accused No. 1, and two others, namely, Rajesh Hirwe, the Manager of Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Rourkela, and V.K. Gupta, the owner of M/s. Balajee Agencies (Telecom Division), Rourkela, as accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively who are not parties to t...
Tag this Judgment!