ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] forest produce and, therefore, he could never be held responsible for the same. He also drew my attention to Rules 4 and 7 of the T.T. Rules, which provide that a person desiring to remove forest produce under Rule 4 shall apply for transit permit to the Forest Officer having jurisdiction in Form II or Form III, as the case may be, together with a declaration and undertaking as required and only then his application would be entertained for consideration or refusal. According to the petitioner, the statement of Shri Dinakar shows that no application was filed by the present petitioner and if at all anything had been done by A.K.Chatterjee, by no stretch of imagination the petitioner is not to blame for that. 8. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be brushed aside. Before going into the merit of the case, it is pertinent to mention here the order of this Court dated 26.2.2002, which is quoted below :- No coercive action or precipitative action against the petitioner shall be taken without the leave of this Court in regard to F.I.R. dated 23.5.2000/Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.30/2000…….” On 11.3.2002 this Court passed the following order : XXX XXX XXX Be that as it may, the order dated 26.2.2002 is very clear and unambiguous, and it leaves no scope for interpretation that there is stay of investigation. The Investigating Agency has only been directed not to take any coercive or precipitative action against the present petitioner without the leave of this Court because if such an action is taken during the pendency of the application, the entire application will become infructuous. Therefore, no clarification of the order dated 26.2.2002 is at all required.” XXX XXX XXX Thereafter, when the matter was listed, adjournments were sought mostly by the counsel for the Vigilance Department on the ground that sanction of competent authority was awaited. On 10.4.2007 this Court in Misc. Case No.7/2002 while clarifying that sanction was not the issue in the present proceedings and the case could be heard on merit without awaiting sanction, fixed the case for final hearing on April 18, 2007. On April 18, 2007, on a joint request of the parties, 26
27 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORISSA [B.P.DAS,J.] the case was adjourned to May 16, 2007. On May 16, 2007 chargesheet was filed during pendency of this case. 9. In paragraph-6 of this judgment, the relevant portion of the chargesheet has already been quoted. It was indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in the F.I.R. It is also pertinent to mention here that when the petitioner was challenging Vigilance P.S. Case No.53 of 1996 before this Court in Crl.Misc. Case No. 771 of 2002, the F.I.R. against Sri Anil Kumar Chatterjee, Forest Range Officer, Kuarmunda Range, was pursued which ultimately resulted in filling of the charge-sheet. The said Crl. Misc. Case has also been disposed of by this Court on 15.12.2008. In the present case, as contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, perusal of the F.I.R. and charge-sheet, indicate that there is no material to implicate the petitioner, save and except the statement made in paragraph-4 charge-sheet that on 18.2.1992 Sri A.K.Chatterjee issued TT Permit in favour of Sri D.K.Ray, Director, M/s.Hotel Mayfair Beach Resort, Puri, authorizing transportation of 20.46 cft. Sal from Rourkela to Puri. Save and except saying that some TT Permits were issued in favour of Sri B.K.Das, C/o.D.K.Ray, Rourkela, and Sri D.K.Ray, Director, M/s.Hotel Mayfair Beach Resort, Puri, and Sri D.K.Ray, Director, M/s.Hotel Bishram Pvt. Ltd., there is nothing in the charge-sheet to show that any application was made by the Company or by D.K.Ray for issuance of TT Permit for transportation of the timbers, which is required under the T.T. Rules. Learned counsel for the prosecution also emphasized on the fact that Sri A.K.Chatterjee, Range Officer Kuarmunda, during his incumbency as Forest Range Officer during the year 1990-94 had shown undue official favour to Sri D.K.Ray, the then Hon’ble Minister of State and his employees, Bisikesan Das and Ramsaya Pandey by abusing his official position in issuing TT Permits, allowing transport of excess quantity of timbers and sized logs over and above the quantity actually purchased by the applicants. It is further indicated in the charge-sheet that Sri Dillip Kumar Ray, who was the then Minister of State, recommended the transfer of Sri Anil Kumar Chatterjee from Baliisankara K.L.Range to Kuarmunda Forest Range, This cannot be said to be material to connect the petitioner as an accused. As an elected representative of the people, there was no bar for him to recommend the transfer or stop the transfer of any employee. In this case, as it appears, the petitioner recommended the transfer of Sri Anil Kumar Chatterjee on the ground of illness of his wife, who was a cardiac patient. This cannot be a ground to make out a case against the petitioner. Even after taking the petitioner’s case as in the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet on its face value, if the allegations made are accepted and nothing is added
Page 1 and 2: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 271 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 3 and 4: SK.IBRAHIM -V- STATE OF ORISSA [B.K
Page 5 and 6: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 275 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 7 and 8: MIRJA SIDDIK -V- STATE OF ORISSA ju
Page 9 and 10: 23 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
Page 11: 25 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
Page 15 and 16: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 285 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 17 and 18: NITYANANDA BEHERA -V- STATE [S.C.PA
Page 19 and 20: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 289 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 21 and 22: ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 23 and 24: ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 25 and 26: 39 13. In the case of P. J. Chacko
Page 27 and 28: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 297 L.MOHAPATRA
Page 29 and 30: 43 Court in the case of M/s. Thunga
Page 31 and 32: 45 and (c) on account of some mista
Page 33 and 34: “ The High Court held that the re
Page 35 and 36: 49 Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Page 37 and 38: The copy of the Station Diary dt.24
Page 39 and 40: 53 accordingly, investigation was t
Page 41 and 42: 55 lying dead with ligature mark on
Page 43 and 44: 11.40(1974) CLT.977 : (Sahadeb Patn
Page 45 and 46: comparative statement showing perfo
Page 47 and 48: 61 construed according to the plain
Page 49 and 50: 63 11. This Court in Sahadeb Pattna
Page 51 and 52: ules and regulations h) Ability to
Page 53 and 54: INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
Page 59 and 60: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 328 A.S.NAIDU,J
Page 63 and 64:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 332 PRADIP MOHA
Page 65 and 66:
INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
91 impression of bias and favourtis
Page 79 and 80:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 348 M.M.DAS,J.
Page 81 and 82:
95 hearing the appeal set aside the
Page 83 and 84:
97 and the parties to the lease are
Page 85 and 86:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 354 R.N.BISWAL,
Page 87 and 88:
101 cargo, which was unfit for ship
Page 89 and 90:
103 This Section stipulates that ap
Page 91 and 92:
105 Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of
Page 93 and 94:
107 further, in the meantime also t
Page 95 and 96:
109 “…… The High Court was of
Page 97 and 98:
111 learned Subordinate Judge on th
Page 99 and 100:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 368 SANJU PANDA
Page 101 and 102:
115 OLR 791 (Sk. Mustafa and anothe
Page 103 and 104:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 372 SANJU PANDA
Page 105 and 106:
119 Rs. 71,74,451/- for repair of t
Page 107 and 108:
121 reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 (A
Page 109 and 110:
123 already quoted and the aforesai
Page 111 and 112:
125 offending truck. The further ca
Page 113 and 114:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 382 B.P.RAY,J.
Page 115 and 116:
129 to any person, or to consent th
Page 117 and 118:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 386 B.P.RAY, J.
Page 119 and 120:
133 testimony of the victim in a ca
Page 121 and 122:
135 relationship of the appellant w
Page 123 and 124:
137 Officer,Bangalore). 3.AIR 1996
Page 125 and 126:
139 restored, only to avoid the ord
Page 127 and 128:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 396 141 B.K.PAT
Page 129 and 130:
143 4.12.1997. The vehicle was insu
Page 131 and 132:
145 vehicle and insurance policy tr
Page 133 and 134:
147 place from the date of sale whe
Page 135 and 136:
149 deemed to have issued to the in
Page 137 and 138:
151 6. On an analysis of Sections 9
Page 139 and 140:
153 the policy purports to cover in
Page 141 and 142:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 410 B.K.NAYAK,
Page 143 and 144:
157 “….. The decision in the ca
Page 145 and 146:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 414 S.K.MISHRA,
Page 147 and 148:
161 the imposition of fine of Rs.50
Page 149 and 150:
163 overtuous regarding sex. Theref
Page 151 and 152:
165 6. The learned trial court, aft
Page 153 and 154:
167 The Opposite parties 2 to 11 ar
Page 155 and 156:
169 3. It is undisputed at this sta
Page 157:
shall dispose of the application on
show all

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?