Orissa High Court Weekly Round Up: September 6 To September 11, 2022

Nominal Index:Ashok Kumar Gedi v. Jyotrimayee Behera & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 132Ashis Kerketta & Anr. v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 133Sanjit Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. Ranjit Mishra, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 134Cases Reported in the Week:O. 6 R. 17 CPC | Amendment To Election Petition Can't Be Permitted To Cure 'Inherent Defect' After Expiry Of Limitation Period: Orissa High CourtCase Title: Ashok Kumar Gedi v. Jyotrimayee Behera & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 132The High Court held that an amendment application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be allowed to cure some inherent defects in an election petition, changing its character and nature, after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period. A Single Bench of Justice Biswanath Rath observed,"For the opinion of this Court, the mistake appears to be inherent mistake by allowing change in the village names after election dispute period is over which will be amounting to extending filing of election dispute beyond the time stipulation prescribed in the Grama Panchayat Election Rules. Finding the election dispute involved inherent mistake and amendment being brought after 15 days restriction from filing the election dispute of this nature is impermissible in the eye of law."Orissa High Court Upholds Life Sentences Of Murder Convicts Basing Upon Testimony Of 'Child Witness'Case Title: Ashis Kerketta & Anr. v. State of OdishaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 133The High Court affirmed the life imprisonment awarded to two murder convicts while placing reliance upon the testimony of a 'child witness'. To clarify the position of law regarding admissibility and reliability of testimony given by child witness, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Chittaranjan Dash relied on Alagupandi @ Alagupandian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012), wherein it was observed,"There is no Rule or practice that in every case the evidence of such a witness be corroborated by other evidence before a conviction can be allowed to stand but as a Rule of prudence the court always finds it desirable to seek corroboration to such evidence from other reliable evidence placed on record. Further, it is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable."Legal Heirs Can Substitute Complainant In Complaint Cases & Pursue Prosecution Upon His Death: Orissa High CourtCase Title: Sanjit Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. Ranjit MishraCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 134In a landmark decision, the Orissa High Court ruled that legal heirs of a complainant, where a criminal case is instituted upon complaint, can substitute him upon his death and pursue the case on his/her behalf. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held,"…notwithstanding absence of a specific provision, the statutory intent of the provisions of the Code is not to foreclose the right of a person to continue with the prosecution upon death of the complainant. In other words, it is impliedly acknowledged that the victim of a crime may die but the crime committed against him does not. Nor does the guilt of the offender get washed away only because the victim is no more. On the contrary, the offender would still remain liable to be prosecuted for his deeds and punished, if found guilty."Important Developments:Orissa HC Directs Chief Forests Conservator To Submit 'Comprehensive Action Plan' To Control Unnatural Elephant DeathsCase Title: Gita Rout & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 14706 of 2022 & other connected mattersThe High Court directed the Principal, Chief Conservator of Forests ('PCCF') to submit 'comprehensive action plan' to control and minimise the rising unnatural deaths of wild animals in general and elephants in particular, across the State. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Chittaranjan Dash further directed the lawyers and the JTF have to take into consideration the order of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2012) concerning the "Asiatic Wild Buffalo", the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Suo Motu v. State of Karnataka, the judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Manoj Immanual v. Union of India, W.P. (MD) No. 19711 of 2018 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Hospitality Association of Mudumalai v. In defence of Environment and Animals (2020) while recommending steps to be taken in this direction. It also directed that the measures taken by the State of Assam in tackling similar problems in that state concerning elephant-human conflict will also be examined by the JTF.Justice Chandrachud Bats For Digitisation Of Court Records, Lauds Orissa High Court ModeThe Orissa High Court observed the 'First Anniversary' of the Record Room Digitization Centre ('RRDC') on Friday at the Odisha Judicial Academy, Cuttack. The event witnessed the virtual presence of Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Judge, Supreme Court of India and...

Orissa High Court Weekly Round Up: September 6 To September 11, 2022

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags