January to March 2013 for PDF.pmd - Orissa High Court

26CourtNewsPENAL CODE, 1860 – Ss. 420, 468, 471.SUKANTI CHOUDHURY -V- STATE OF ORISSACRLREV NO.1407 OF 2008 (Dt.08.02.2013)Offence of cheating and forgery – To establish the offence fraudulent or dishonest intention of theaccused is required to be proved.In this case prosecution alleged that the petitioner used forged High School Certificate issued bythe Board of Secondary Education Orissa – No material that the petitioner had any role to forge andprocure the certificate – No inference also can be made on the basis of surmises and conjectures in aCriminal Proceeding – In the absence of any material to indicate existence of the essential ingredient ofrequired knowledge or intention, continuance of the Criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amountto an abuse of process of Court – Held, impugned order taking cognizance is set aside and the CriminalProceeding is dropped.(B. K. Patel, J.)ANANDA CHANDRA OJHA-V- ASHOK SAHOOW.P.(C). NO.1698 OF 2013 (Dt.13.02.2013)ELECTION DISPUTE – Grama Panchayat Election – Recounting of votes – When can be ordered– Election Petition seeking re-counting of votes must contain serial number of ballots illegally acceptedor rejected and the source of information – The name of the agent who had furnished such informationand the note book on the basis of which such details had been furnished must be disclosed in the electionpetition out of which the Tribunal must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute betweenthe parties such an order is imperatively necessary.In the present case learned trial Court is totally misconceived regarding pleadings raised and theevidence adduced by the election petitioner while passing the impugned order – Held, the impugned orderis set aside – Direction issued to the learned trial Court to proceed with the trial.(Sanju Panda, J. )MAMITA CHOUDHURY-V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.14166 OF 2008 (Dt.18.02.2013)ODISHA EXCISE RULES, 1965 – RULE 34 (1) (d).Opening of IMFL ‘ON’ shop (Bar) in the hotel of O.P.5 – License granted by the Government – Actionchallenged on the ground that the hotel is located within 30 meters from a school.Local MLA and Chairperson of the NAC recommended the ‘ON’ shop and Principal of the aboveschool submitted no objection for the same – State undertakes liquor trade in order to generate revenuein spite of the mandate under Article 47 of the Constitution of India and choose to relax the restrictionsunder Rule 34 (1) (d) – Held, since State has made appropriate consideration on the fact situation of thecase there is no lawful justification for this Court to interfere in the matter hence dismissed the writpetition.( Indrajit Mahanty, J & Raghubir Dash, J.)