1. Bijaya Manjari Satpathy v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 158

2. Project Officer, Bharatpur Open Cast Project of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Darsani Kumar Sahoo & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 159

3. Kalandi Charan Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 160

4. JB v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 161

5. Manoj Kumar Agarwal v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 162

Cases Reported in the Week:

· [S. 138 NI Act] Person In Charge Of Trust Can't Be Arraigned As Accused Without Impleading The Trust Itself: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Bijaya Manjari Satpathy v. State of Orissa & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 158

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held that a person in charge of a 'Trust' cannot be impleaded as an accused for dishonour of cheque, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the 'Trust' itself is not arraigned as a party as per the mandate of Section 141 of the Act. Section 141 prescribes liabilities of companies for dishonour of cheques.

· Writ Of Certiorari Can't Be Issued To Examine Adequacy Of Evidence Adduced Before Lower Court/Tribunal: Orissa High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Project Officer, Bharatpur Open Cast Project of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Darsani Kumar Sahoo & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 159

A Division Bench of Justices Arindam Sinha and Sanjay Kumar Mishra clarified that a proceeding cannot be drawn for issuance of the writ of certiorari merely to challenge a finding of fact recorded by a Lower Court/Tribunal, on the ground that the material evidence adduced before the forum was 'insufficient' to sustain the finding. While placing reliance on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. Radhakrishnan, the Court noted:

"…a writ of Certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law, which can be corrected by a writ of Certiorari. The Court went on to say further that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of Certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding."

· Merit List Not A Reservoir For Future Appointments: Orissa High Court Dismisses Plea Filed With 15 Yrs Delay

Case Title: Kalandi Charan Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 160

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo held that a 'select/merit list' cannot be deemed to be a 'reservoir' for the purpose of appointments. While denying appointment to a candidate who approached the Court, 15 years after publication of the select list, the Court placed reliance on the following observations made by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Rajkishore Nanda & Ors.:

"A select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments, that vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required. It is the settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to the candidate if he approaches the Court after expiry of the select list. If the selection process is over, select list has expired and appointments had been made, no relief can be granted by the Court at a belated stage."

· "Institutional Lethargy Has Crept Into Police Stations": Orissa High Court Issues Guidelines For Compulsory Registration Of FIRs

Case Title: JB v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 161

A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi issued a slew of instructions/guidelines to the Director General of Police, Odisha (DGP) for compulsory registration of First Information Reports (FIRs), requiring him to forward the same to all the police stations of the State. Expressing disappointment over frequent cases of non-registration of FIRs by police officers, the Court issued the following six instructions:

"a) Whenever a person comes to the Police Station with a complaint, the Officer posted at the Police Station shall compulsorily receive the complaint and endorse the complaint by way of a receipt or by way of stamp acknowledging the said receipt at that Police Station with time and date. The Police Officer shall further insist a photo copy of the said complaint to be given back to the complainant.

b) While a prescribed format is not necessary, it is essential that the In-charge of the Police Station shall indicate the minimum information required to substantiate a complaint and shall suggest what supporting documents are relevant and can add weight to the complaint.

c) The concerned official must be courteous to the complainant who approaches to the Police station and furnish a pen and a paper to the complainant, on request.

d) The complainant may also be given a comfortable space to sit and write the complaint.

e) If the person is illiterate, the complaint must be dictated by the complainant to the officer-in-charge who shall reduce the same in writing and dictate it to the complainant before it is signed and stamped by the officer.

f) A copy (photo-copy) of the FIR filed must be returned to the complainant by the concerned officer free of cost."

· S. 173(8) CrPC | Magistrate Not Barred To Order Further Investigation After Taking Cognizance, Until Trial Commences: Orissa HC Reiterates

Case Title: Manoj Kumar Agarwal v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 162

A Single Judge Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar reiterated that the power of Judicial Magistrates to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not taken away only because cognizance was taken of an offence. While clarifying the position of law, it placed reliance on 2019's three-judge bench judgment of the Apex Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. The State of Gujarat, wherein after overruling certain previous contradictory judgments, the Court held,

"To ensure that a "proper investigation" takes place in the sense of a fair and just investigation by the police - which such Magistrate is to supervise - Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that all powers necessary, which may also be incidental or implied, are available to the Magistrate to ensure a proper investigation which, without doubt, would include the ordering of further investigation after a report is received by him under Section 173(2); and which power would continue to ensure in such Magistrate at all stages of the criminal proceedings until the trial itself commences."

Other Important Developments:

· Explore Possibility Of Registering e-FIRs, Especially In Cases Of Crimes Against Women: Orissa High Court Directs DGP

Case Title: JP v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No.: CRLMP No. 2302 of 2022

A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi directed the Director General of Police, Odisha (DGP) to explore the possibility for registration of 'e-First Information Reports (e-FIRs)' in the State. Having regard for the increasing cases of crimes against women and institutional lethargy in quick registration of FIRs, the Court directed:

"The Director General of Police, Odisha is directed to explore the possibility of registration of e-F.I.R. in the State. The registration of e-F.I.R. especially in cases of crimes against women will go to a long way in combating crimes against women and ensure better women safety and security. He is also directed to file the reply before this Court within fifteen days regarding possibility of having a system of registration of e-F.I.R. in the State."

· No Complete Proposal From State Govt To Setup New Bench Of Orissa High Court: Law Minister Kiren Rijiju

While answering a question raised by Saptagiri Sankar Ulaka, Lok Sabha MP from Odisha's Koraput, the Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju clarified that presently there is no 'complete proposal' from the Government of Odisha to establish a new Bench of the Orissa High Court pending with the Central Government. He acknowledged that requests for establishing Benches at other places except the Principal Bench at Cuttack have been received from the State Government of Odisha, which has requested to set up Benches at Western and Southern regions of the State. He said that the Central Government has requested the State Govt. to work out the details, in consultation with the High Court of Orissa, including its location. However, he clarified,

"…no response has been received yet. At present, no complete proposal from the State Government of Odisha regarding setting up of a Bench of the High Court is pending with the [Union] Government."