ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

158 6. If appreciated in the perspective of the claim, I am of the view that the Court should be too slow to thrive the second application of a party for anticipatory bail where the earlier one has been rejected on merits and there is no substantial change of circumstance or events. Further, repetition of prayer for anticipatory bail after rejection by a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction after invoking the power of review of the decision of the earlier Bench may lead to a judicial anarchy about which caution has been sounded by the apex Court in the case of Mahadolal Kanodia v. Administrator General; AIR 1960 S.C. 936 : “Judicial decorum no less than legal propriety forms the basis of judicial procedure” and “if one thing is more necessary in law than any other thing it is the quality or certainty” and that “ that quality would totally disappear if judges of coordinate jurisdiction in the High Court start overruling one another’s decisions”. It was observed further that the result would be utter confusion if a “Judge sitting singly in the High Court is of opinion that the previous decisions of another single judge on a question of law is wrong and gives effect to that view instead of referring the matter to a larger bench” as “in such a case lawyers would not know how to advise their clients and all courts subordinate to the High Court would find themselves in an NIRANJAN SAHOO -V- STATE OF ORISSA embarrassing position of having to choose between dissentient judgment of their own High Court.”. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that this second application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable and accordingly it stands rejected. Application rejected.
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 414 S.K.MISHRA,J. KELU CHARAN BEHERA -V- STATE OF ORISSA.* FEBRUARY 2,2010. 159 PENAL CODE, 1860 (ACT NO. 45 OF 1860) – SEC.354. Out raging the modesty of woman – Test to determine – Action of the offender is important where from it could be perceived as to how it is capable of shocking the sence of decency of a woman. In the present case the informant does not complain that the petitioner aimed the blow to her breast – Rather she has very categorically stated that the petitioner pressed the lathi (Katha) on her neck and stood on it – Then the petitioner’s wife dragged him – It appears that the injury to her breast caused accidentally – There is no suggestive overtuous regarding sex – Held, offence U/s.354 is not made out and the conviction of the petitioner U/s.354 IPC. is not sustainable. (Para 6,7) Case laws Referred to:- 1.1995 SCC.(Crl.) 1059 :( Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) & Anr.-V-Kanwar Pal SinghGill& Anr.). 2.AIR 1967 SC 63 : (State of Punjab -V-Major Singh).
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 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
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 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 328 A.S.NAIDU,J
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 332 PRADIP MOHA
Page 65 and 66:
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: 157 “….. The decision in the ca
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?