25 April 2022 7:30 AM GMT
Nominal Index: Kailash Chandra Panda & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 48Ashish Thakare v. National Commission for Scheduled Tribes & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 49Smt. Bishnupriya Pattnaik & Anr. v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 50Kartik Nag v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 51Basanta Kumar Sahoo v. Odisha Forest...
Judgments/Orders Reported in the Week:
Case Title: Kailash Chandra Panda & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 48
The High Court held that a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable before the High Court against an order of District Court which is passed in the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. It clarified that an order must have been made under the 'original jurisdiction' of District Court to attract applicability of the provision. While explaining the true purport of the terms 'other proceedings' appearing under Section 115, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Biswajit Mohanty observed,
"The words "or other proceedings" have to be read ejusdem generis with the words "original suits". In other words, the phrase 'other proceedings' will not cover cases arising out of decisions made in the appeals or revisions. If the District Court has not decided in its original jurisdiction, then such order is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of High Court."
The Court stayed an arrest warrant issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes against the Collector & District Magistrate, Keonjhar. While staying the warrant, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Biswanath Rath observed that the Commission has prima facie exceeded its power in issuing warrant to the Collector.
Mr. Ashish Thakare, the Collector & District Magistrate of Keonjhar district, was summoned by the Commission to appear before it on 4th April 2022 in relation to a case pertaining to non-payment of compensation and employment benefit to a tribal person in a land acquisition case. However, he did not appear. Notably, he had ignored summons of the Commission for at least 'eight times' during the last six months.
The High Court gave clean-chit to the Kendrapara sub-jail authorities in a custodial death case of 2007. It further denied to order compensation to the parents of the deceased as it did not find any foul play on part of the jail authorities. While dismissing the petition, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed,
"There is no material on the basis of which this Court can come to a conclusion that the death of late Susanta Pattnaik was either due to any ill-treatment by the jail officials or due to negligence of the jail officials in not affording any timely medical treatment for his condition."
The High Court set aside the orders passed by a Sessions-cum-Special Court which granted extension to submit chargesheet without providing hearing to accused and not even releasing him when he was entitled for 'default bail'. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray held,
"It is the settled law that right guaranteed under Section 167(2) to the accused is indefeasible. This Court, in the case of Lambodar Bag (supra) after taking into consideration the principles decided in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, reported in A.I.R. 1994 SC 2623 and various other decisions, have answered on five points relating to release of an accused in terms of Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act read with Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The answer is in affirmative in favour of the accused for his enlargement on bail for non-completion of investigation within the prescribed period of 180 days on different contingencies relating to extension of such period."
In an interesting matter, the High Court has expressed faith on the Odisha Forest Department Corporation Ltd. in a dispute concerning a 'force-majeure' clause of a tender agreement. While denying the clause to be a 'mandate', a Single Judge Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha remarked that the petitioner has prayed for consideration as a result of devastation caused by super cyclone. It held, so far as Clause 3 of the tender terms and conditions is concerned, mention of force-majeure does not gain significance since the clause requires acceptance by the tenderer on inspection of the plantation. The super cyclone, being force-majeure, happened after inspection of the lot was taken by petitioner. Thus, it could not have been of information to be obtained on inspection, prior to the allotment. Further, it hoped that Opposite party no. 1 being an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it will do the right thing.
The High Court has recently held that even a single injury to any vital part of human body can cause death and causing such death, having all knowledge of the most probable result, is murder. While dismissing an appeal preferred by a couple against their conviction for murder of one of their relatives, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed,
The Court has held that 'date of submission' of chargesheet is the only relevant date that should be taken into consideration while granting 'default bail' under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 'Date of preparation' of chargesheet is immaterial unless it is produced before the Court on the same day. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray ruled,
"As per the language used in Section 167, Cr.P.C., the detention is authorized pending completion of investigation and completion of investigation leads to submission of report under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C. The words used in Section 173(2), Cr.P.C. is 'as soon as'. Therefore, the inference is that, the investigation has been completed only when the charge-sheet is submitted to the court. Thus, the date of completion of investigation is the date of submission of charge-sheet and reverse."
The Registry of the High Court, on 19th April, notified that with a view to streamline matters relating to e-filing, whenever a case is e-filed in the High Court of Orissa through e-filing version 3.0, there shall be no requirement of filing hardcopy of the e-filed documents. Further it clarified, if any dispute arises with regard to any e-filed document or any portion thereof, the concerned advocate or litigant shall physically file the original of the relevant e-filed document.