Orissa High Court Monthly Digest: April 2022 [Citations 38-55]

Nominal Index: 1. Indrajit Sengupta & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 38 2. Sri Gadadhar Barik v. Sri Pradeep Kumar Jena & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 39 3. Asha Hans v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 40 4. Krushna Prasad Sahoo v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 41 5. Rohita Mirdha & Ors. v. State of Orissa, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 42 6. M/s. Salubrity Biotech Ltd. & Anr. v. Bank of Baroda, Vadodara & Ors., 2022 Live Law (Ori) 43 7. M.G. Mohanty & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 44 8. M/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd. versus Micro Small and Enterprises Facilitation and Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 45 9. Pramod Kumar Rout v. The Superintending Engineer Electrical Circle & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 46 10. Pradeep Kumar Pattnaik v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 47 11. Kailash Chandra Panda & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 48 12. Ashish Thakare v. National Commission for Scheduled Tribes & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 49 13. Smt. Bishnupriya Pattnaik & Anr. v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 50 14. Kartik Nag v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 51 15. Basanta Kumar Sahoo v. Odisha Forest Department Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 52 16. Pradeep Kumar Nath & Anr. v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 53 17. Pramesh Pradhan@Rani & Anr. v. State of Orissa, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 54 18. Manoranjan Das v. State of Orissa, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 55 Judgments/Orders Reported this Month: 1. Second Trial Not 'Double Jeopardy' If Offences Different, Though Arose Out Of Same Set Of Facts: Orissa High Court Case Title: Indrajit Sengupta & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 38 The Orissa High Court clarified that a second trial for offences, other than what was tried in the first trial, does not attract 'double jeopardy' only because both set of offences arose out of same set of facts. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed, "The expression 'same offence' appearing in Section 300 Cr.P.C. read with Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India means that the offence for which the accused has been tried and the offence for which he is again being tried must be identical. The subsequent trial is barred only if the ingredients of the two offences are identical and not when they are different even though may have resulted from the commission or omission arising out of the same set of facts." 2. S.138 NI Act | Court Can Take Cognizance Of Complaint Based On Notice Pursuant To 'Re-Presentation' Of Cheque: Orissa High Court Case Title: Sri Gadadhar Barik v. Sri Pradeep Kumar Jena & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 39 The High Court held that Court can take cognizance of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for 'cheque bounce' on the basis of a notice issued pursuant to presentation of a cheque for encashment for the second time and its subsequent dishonour. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed, "...if the entire purpose underlined Section 138 of the N.I. Act is to compel the drawers to honour their commitments made in course of business or other transactions, there is no reason why a person who has issued a cheque which is dishonoured and who failed to make payment despite statutory notice served upon him should be immune to prosecution simply because the holder of the cheque had not rushed to the court with a complaint based on such default or for the reason that the drawer has made the holder defer prosecution promising to make arrangements for funds or on account of any other similar situation." 3. Orders Obtained Fraudulently Can Be Set Aside Even If Fraud Is Detected After Limitation Period: Orissa High Court Case Title: Asha Hans v. State of Odisha & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 40 The Court held that orders obtained through fraudulent means can be set aside even if fraud is detected after the limitation period. While refusing to set aside an order cancelling leases on detection of fraud, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed, "Regard being had to the above facts and the circumstances under which the lands were settled with the lessees in clear violation of the provisions of the OGLS Act with the fraud being played upon the authority concerned, who again failed to follow the procedures and as a result, the illegality was committed, the Court is of the considered view that since the fraud was detected in the year 1998 and thereafter, OP No.2 promptly took action and proceeded to cancel the leases, such action cannot be held as unfair and unjustified." 4. Orissa High Court Issues Directions To Ensure Nutritional ...

Orissa High Court Monthly Digest: April 2022 [Citations 38-55]

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags