ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] thereto or subtracted therefrom, no offence is made out against the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashing of the chargesheet but the same has not been challenged in this case and only the F.I.R. has been sought to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of Atique Ahmed Vs. State of UP reported in 2002 Crl.LJ 132, wherein a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court observed that a constitutional court can take into account the subsequent events in order to do complete justice between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigations. Basing upon the said decision, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to quash the charge-sheet. 11. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner for the offence under the provisions of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988/120-B IPC and Section 21 of Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 will amount to miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of court. As the petitioner has challenged only the F.I.R. and not the charge-sheet, I dispose of this Crl. Misc. Case with a direction that in the event sanction is received and the petitioner files an application before the trial court at the time of framing of charge to discharge him, the said application shall be allowed by the trial court. Application allowed. 28
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 285 B.P.DAS,J & S.C.PARIJA,J. NITYANANDA BEHERA -V- STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.* FEBRUARY 5,2010. NOTARY ACT, 1952 (ACT NO.52 OF 1952 ) – SEC.5(2) r/w RULE 13(12)(b) Notarial Certificate of practice – Renewal of – A Notary once registered is entitled to renewal as a matter of course – State Government has no discretion to refuse renewal. In the present case there was allegations of misconduct against the petitioner – State Government after considering the misconduct exercised power under Rule 13(12)(b) (iii) of the Notaries Rules, letting off the petitioner with warning – Held, the self same misconduct can not be a ground for refusing renewal of his Notarial Certificate of Practice – Direction issued to Opp.Parties to grant renewal to the petitioner within four weeks. (Para 8,11 & 12) Case law Referred to:- AIR 1992 Kerala 152 : ( State of Kerala & Ors.-V- K.U.Narayana Poduval & Ors.). For Petitioner – M/s. Sujata Dash, R.P.Das & R.Choudhury. For Opp.Parties – Addl.Government Advocate. *W.P.(C) NO.8647 OF 2006. In the matter of an application under articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. S.C.PARIJA, J. The decision of the State Government in the Law Department not to renew the Notarial Certificate of Practice of the petitioner, with effect from 16.7.1998, is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner, as detailed in the writ petition, is that he enrolled as an advocate under the State Bar Council in the year 1972 and started practice at Baripada. On completing more than ten years of active practice as an advocate, the petitioner made an application in the prescribed form accompanied by requisite fees, for being appointed as a Notary. The State Government appointed the petitioner as a Notary, for a period of three years, with effect from 16.7.1983, as per the Notarial Certificate of Practice dated 16.7.1983 (Annexure-1). The said Notarial Certificate of Practice was renewed from time to time, authorising the petitioner to practice as a Notary. 3. In the year 1998, the petitioner applied for renewal of his Notarial Certificate of Practice and accordingly submitted application with requisite fees. While the renewal was pending, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice from the State Government in the Law Department dated 08.01.1998, on various false allegations of misconduct, which were on the basis of anonymous letters purported to have been received from some persons. The petitioner filed his reply to the said show cause notice. The 29
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: 25 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
Page 13: 27 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?