ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

166 8. Applying the principle to the case in hand, it is the duty of the Court not to discuss the evidence but to see that if the order passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge requires interference of this Court. In this case, the statement of P.W.5 Laxman Pradhan, the injured himself, who has sustained six injuries out of which three are grievous in nature, has been brushed aside by the learned trial court rather perfunctorily. It is seen that the learned trial court has taken into consideration the non-mentioning of the name of P.W.4 Shyam Pahanda in the FIR and has held that the presence of the said witness at the spot is ruled out. At the same time, he has taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.4 Shyam Pahanda to discredit the evidence of the injured P.W.5 Laxman Pradhan. The evidence of the witnesses has not been discussed and appreciated in their proper perspective against the accepted canons of appreciation of evidence and the testimony of most of the witnesses have not been properly discussed in the judgment consisting of proper reasoning and lack of judicial approach. The propriety has been entirely ignored and as pointed out earlier at one stage, the lower court looking into the evidence held that the presence of P.W.4 has not been proved because the name was not mentioned in the FIR, such finding is against the settled principle of law that F.I.R is not an encyclopedia. The lower court also committed gross illegality by taking into his evidence to find out fault in the evidence of the injured. 9. The apex Court in Bindeswari Prasad Singh @ B. P. Singh and others Vrs. State of Bihar and Others, (2002)23 OCR SC 476 has held NILAKANTHA PRADHAN -V- STATE OF ORISSA [S.K.MISHRA,J.] that an order of acquittal cannot be interfered by the High Court in revision but in exceptional cases, where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The apex Court has further ruled that the High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. 10. In this case, however, the machinations shown by the trial court in appreciation of evidence cannot be held to be a simple error in appreciation of evidence. In fact, the whole approach of the trial court has resulted in manifest illegality and gross miscarriage of justice. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid considerations, this Court holds that the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained and requires interference of the revisional court. 12. In the result, the Criminal Revision succeeds, the judgment of acquittal dated 24.10.2005 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.1., Puri is hereby set aside and the case is remitted to the trial Court for re-hearing of the argument and to decide the case afresh.
167 The Opposite parties 2 to 11 are directed to appear before the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, (F.T.C-I), Puri on 8.2.2010 without fail. On that date, the learned trial court shall release them of furnishing fresh bail bond on the same conditions they were released during trial. Send back the LCR immediately. Revision allowed. 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 422 S.K.MISHRA,J. LINGARAJ REAL ESTATES & DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.-V- STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.* JANUARY 6,2010. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (ACT NO.2 OF 1974) – SEC.313. Summons Case – Court may dispense with recording of accused statement where his attendance was dispensed with U/s. 205 Cr.P.C. – However the accused has to make an application supported by his/her own affidavit indicating his/her real difficulties vis-à-vis an undertaking that he/she will not raise the question of prejudice at any stage of the case including appeal and revision. (Para 6) Case laws Referred to:- 1.AIR 1988 SC 2163 : (Chandu Lal Chandraker -V- Puran Mal & Anr.). 2.1989 C.L.J.2210 : (Pritish Nandy & Anr.-V- State of Orissa). 3.2000 Crl.L.J. 4604 : (Basavaraj R.Patil & Ors.-V- State of Karnataka & Ors.). For Petitioner - M/s.R.N.Parija, A.K.Rout & S.Pattanaik. For Opp.Parties – M/s.A.N.Das, S.Das, Y.S.P.Babu, M.Verma,
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 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: 165 6. The learned trial court, aft
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?