- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Orissa High Court
- /
- Orissa High Court Annual Digest...
Orissa High Court Annual Digest 2023
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
11 Jan 2024 10:36 AM GMT
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 01 To 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 120 [Citations 1-120]Nominal Index:Animesh Chakraborty v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 1Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 2Soli @ Sulachana Jena & Anr. v. Chief Executive Officer, NESCO (Electrical), Balasore & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 3Sk. Jumman @ Badruddin v. State of Odisha, 2023...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 01 To 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 120
[Citations 1-120]
Nominal Index:
Animesh Chakraborty v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 1
Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 2
Soli @ Sulachana Jena & Anr. v. Chief Executive Officer, NESCO (Electrical), Balasore & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 3
Sk. Jumman @ Badruddin v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 4
Santosh Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 5
Girish Prasad Mishra & Anr. v. Smt. Lopamudra Kar, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 6
Shrikant Mohta v. Republic of India (CBI), 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 7
Mukunda Parichha v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 8
Gourahari Lenka v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 9
Subham Jena & Anr. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 10
Bobby Islam v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 11
State of Odisha (Vig.) v. Debasis Dixit, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 12
V. Vinay v. Srinu Patro & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 13
Ashok Kumar Das v. Kapileswar Samal & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 14
Smt. Geeta Tiwari & Anr. v. State of Orissa & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 15
Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 16
Rabindra Kumar Jena v. Republic of India (CBI), 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 17
Sureswar Mishra v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 18
Vedanta Resources Ltd. v. ACIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 19
Gau Gyan Foundation 'Rudrashram Gaushala' v. The State of Odisha & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 20
D. Anita Majhi @ Mila v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 21
State of Odisha v. M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 22
M. Rajamma v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 23
Hrusikesh Sahoo & Anr. v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 24
Smt. Renuka Sethi & Ors. v. Babu Sahu & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 25
PCIT (Central) versus Narayan Kumar Khaitan, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 26
Management Committee, CFH Scheme, Paradip Port v. Paradip Port Workers Union & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 27
Bichitrananda Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 28
Manager Legal, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Usha Agarwal & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 29
Prangya Paramita Harichandan v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 30
Amrita Ray v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 31
M/s. Unideep Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. ITAT, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 32
Laxmi Sahu v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 33
M/s. Unideep Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. ITAT, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 34
State of Odisha v. M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 35
Minaketan Nayak & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 36
M/s. Kamadhenu Cattle & Poultry Feed Unit v. The State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 37
Maria Kadaisma @ Kadaiska @ Salmina v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 38
M/s. Galaxy Bar and Restaurant, Nayagarh v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 39
Rudra Narayan Sahu v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 40
Basanta Dehury & Ors. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 41
Litumanjari Pradhan v. Chairman, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Bhubaneswar & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 42
Jayanti Naik v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 43
Hemalata Mohapatra v. Bijay Kumar Pradhani, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 44
Khudia @ Khudiram Tudu v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 45
Midiyan Pani & Ors. v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 46
M/s. Jena Trading and Co. v. CT and GST Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 47
Ananda Ch. Sahu v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 48
Rabindra Kumar Mishra & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 49
Prafulla Chandra Mohapatra @ Prusty v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 50
Raja @ Raj Kishore Behera & Anr. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 51
Jeevanjyoti Mohanty & Ors. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 52
Barika Pradhan v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 53
Ratnalu Omprakash v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 54
Shiva @ Gurucharan Singh v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 55
Chhayakant Acharya v. Samitav Pani, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 56
Basi Bewa & Ors. v. Raimani Majhiani, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 57
Latika Sahoo & Ors. v. Ramesh Nayak & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 58
Santosh Kumar Acharya v. Ratinakar Swain, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 59
Suresh Chandra Sahoo @ Sura @ Sarat Chandra Sahoo @ Somanath v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 60
Mrs. X v. Mr. Y, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 61
State of Odisha & Anr. v. Joseph Barik [and batch of other appeals], 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 62
Nesar Ahmed Khan v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 63
Mantu Das v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 64
Sk. Hussain & Ors. v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 65
Smt. Jayanti Das v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 66
Madhusudan Pujapanda v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 67
M/s. Laxman Barik v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Balasore & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 68
Manish Agarwal v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 69
State of Orissa v. Mangulu Munda & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 70
Swadheen Kumar Rout v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 71
Madhusudan Das v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 72
Deepak Oram v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 73
Dilu Jojo v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 74
Bandhna Toppo v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 75
Yagnaseni Patel v. The General Manager, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 76
Swornalata Dash v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 77
Chinmaya Sahu v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 78
Pradeep Kumar Das v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 79
Bapun Singh v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 80
Duryodhan Majhi @ Durja v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 81
Santanu Kaudi v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 82
Sanu Munda v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 83
Saroj Sahoo v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 84
TB v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 85
Dr. Biswa Mohan Mishra v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 86
Anshuman Kanungo v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 87
Ganesh Munda @ Balabhadra Munda @ Sunidhi v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 88
Raja @ Rajendra Prasad Swain @ Rajendra Pratap Swain v. Union of India, R.P.F., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 89
Madhusmita Samant v. Union of India & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 90
Pradeepta Kumar Praharaj v. State of Odisha (Vig.), 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 91
National Aluminum Company Ltd v. Orissa Coal Chem Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 92
State of Odisha (G.A. Vigilance) v. Sanjubala Rout, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 93
Sukumar Gouda v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 94
Nimananda Biswal v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 95
Satrughna Samal v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 96
Babujan @ Sk. Sabjan v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 97
Partha Sarathi Das v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 98
Kamal Franklin Patra @ Raja v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 99
Biyat Pragya Tripathy v. Government of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 100
Anita Manjari Rout v. President, Orissa Association for the Blind, Odisha Bhubaneswar & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 101
Bada Majhi v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 102
Shankarlal Patwari v. Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 103
Samir Mohanty v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 104
Bana Majhi v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 105
Hadi Dhangada Majhi @ Challan v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 106
Partha Sarathi Das v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 107
Anji @ Ranjit Naik v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 108
Debendra Singh v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 109
Sri Trailokyanath Swain v. Pabitra @ Pabitra Mohan Upadhaya & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 110
Leven Kerketta v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 111
Trupti Mayee Patra v. Registrar, Examination, Orissa High Court, Cuttack, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 112
Nihar Ranjan Choudhury v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 113
Bhanu Charan Pradhan v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 114
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhubaneswar v. Sekhar Kumar Mohapatra, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 115
Dr. Hemangini Meher v. Sangita Naik & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 116
Bibhuti Charan Mohanty v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 117
Prasanta Kumar Moharana v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 118
Susanta Kumar Samantaray & Anr. v. State of Odisha (Vig.), 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 119
Durga Prasad Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 120
Judgments/Orders Reported:
Case Title: Animesh Chakraborty v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 1
The High Court rejected anticipatory bail application filed by a YouTuber, who was accused of taking drone-shots and capturing photos and videos of the holy temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri, which comes under the 'red zone'/ 'no flying zone'. While denying relief to the petitioner, the single judge bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash said:
“It is expected from a law-abiding citizen more particularly from a person in the stature of the Petitioner who claims to have gained experience of getting photographs and videograph of the monuments and heritage of importance irrespective of being a tourist or freelancer to adhere to a minimum caution by obtaining permission from the temple authority, if at all he had intention to take the over view of the Temple or its surroundings. Absence of it raises the question of bonafideness.”
Vedanta Claimed Unutilized ITC Refund, No Scope For Supplementary Refund Application Based On Fresh Calculation: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 2
The Orissa High Court held that Vedanta has claimed the refund of the unutilized input tax credit on account of zero-rated supplies by clubbing up all the transactions relating to three units. It held that there is no scope to insist on consideration of a supplementary refund application based on a fresh calculation made by taking individual unit-wise transactions into account.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice Murahari Sri Raman further observed that Rule 89(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is intra vires. The rule is framed in conformity with the powers conferred on the government under Section 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and there is no necessity to read down Rule 89(4).
Orissa High Court Orders Rs. 2 Lakhs Compensation To Family Of Man Who Died In 2001 After Coming In Contact With Live Electric Wire
Case Title: Soli @ Sulachana Jena & Anr. v. Chief Executive Officer, NESCO (Electrical), Balasore & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 3
The High Court ordered two lakhs' rupees compensation to the wife and son of a man who died after coming in contact with a live electric wire in 2001. While allowing the writ petition, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Biswanath Rath reprimanded the electricity department and said:
“The representation claiming compensation was filed in 2001. It is not expected that the Department shut down its eyes even after filing of Writ Petition forget if to take steps for minimal enquiry on a representation being filed at least to have a fact finding report. The Writ Petition was even filed in 2010.”
Precedents Can't Be Read As Euclid's Theorem, Must Be Applied In Context: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Sk. Jumman @ Badruddin v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 4
The High Court reiterated that judgments cannot be construed mechanically in adjudication of cases and those must be applied having regard for the given facts of a case. While disapproving the manner in which counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on certain judgments, the Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Narasingh sternly observed,
“In relying on the said judgments, bereft of the facts in which the same were decided, learned counsel for the Petitioner lost sight of the seminal principle of interpretation of the judgment. Inasmuch as it is trite law that observations in the judgments cannot be read as “Euclid's theorem”. It has to be applied in the given facts of a particular case.”
Law That Sex On False Promise To Marriage Amounts To Rape Appears To Be Erroneous, Deserves A Relook: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 5
The Orissa High Court doubted the law holding that sex on false promise of marriage amounts to rape. The Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi questioned the rationality of 'automatic extension' of Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to determine the validity of consent for sex on false promise of marriage and called for a 'serious relook' of the same.
“Nonetheless, it radiates from the above discussion that the law is well settled that consent obtained on a false promise to marry is not a valid consent. Hence, the automatic extension of provisions of Section 90 of I.P.C. to determine the effect of a consent under Section 375 of I.P.C. deserves a serious relook. The law holding that false promise to marriage amounts to rape appears to be erroneous.”
Complainant Need Not Cite Detailed Particulars Of Every Single Act Of Domestic Violence In Complaint: Orissa HC Refuses To Quash Case Against In-Laws
Case Title: Girish Prasad Mishra & Anr. v. Smt. Lopamudra Kar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 6
The Court clarified that a complainant need not mention the detailed particulars of every single act of domestic violence in the complaint itself. Thus, even a prima facie disclosure of acts of violence would be sufficient to maintain a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act. While rejecting a revision petition praying to drop the proceedings, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,
“After perusing the complaint petition, this Court is of the considered view that some allegations have been made undoubtedly in general terms but then it is not expected of the complainant to cite the detailed particulars of every single such act that may be treated as an act of domestic violence.”
Orissa High Court Allows Shrikant Mohta To Travel To Thailand For Film Production, Directs Trial Court To Release His Passport
Case Title: Shrikant Mohta v. Republic of India (CBI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 7
The Court directed the trial court to release the passport of Bengali film producer Shrikant Mohta, who is an accused in multi-crore Rose Valley chit fund scam, to enable him to travel to Thailand for the purpose of film production. Mohta was granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2021 on health grounds. Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik said since Mohta is a known figure in the entertainment industry based at Kolkata, there is a remote chance of his absconding and staying away from the limits of the trial court. The bench also noted that investigation has been concluded and there is no material placed on record to show that he had ever misutilised the liberty granted after release on bail.
Rape | 'Too Broad A Generalization' To Hold That A Woman Would Never Speak Something Affecting Her Character: Orissa HC
Case Title: Mukunda Parichha v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 8
The Orissa High Court observed that it is “too broad a generalization” to hold that a woman would never speak which will be detrimental to her character and estimation. Therefore, in rape cases, the rule that version of the prosecutrix need no corroboration cannot be taken as a 'rigid formula' in adjudication of every single case. While allowing an appeal against conviction for rape, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held:
“Learned Court below has also considered the theoretical possibility that a woman ordinarily would not like to speak about something affecting her character and estimation. While the above may be a plausible presumption of the conduct of a woman subjected to rape the same would be too broad a generalization to be accepted in every case as a rigid formula.”
Second Writ Petition Seeking To Enforce Order Made In An Earlier Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Orissa High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Gourahari Lenka v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 9
The Orissa High Court reiterated that a second writ petition, which is filed seeking enforcement of order made in an earlier writ petition, is maintainable. While clarifying the position, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Indrapuri Studio v. State of West Bengal, 2003 (3) Calcutta High Court Notes (CHN) 148, wherein the Court had quoted the following para from the judgment in Bibekananda Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2003) 1 WBLR (Cal) 213.
“It is therefore, settled law that the second writ application is maintainable for implementation of an earlier order of the writ Court. This Court must issue proper directions for proper implementation of previous directions. Where there has been an order, the order must be complied with. An act done is wilful disobedience of a Court Order is not only contempt, but also, an illegal and invalid act. The language used in Article 226 of the Constitution of India is couched in comprehensive phraseology and the said Article recognizes a very wide power on the High Courts to remedy injustice wherever it is found.”
JJ Act | Child In Conflict With Law Can Seek Anticipatory Bail U/S 438 CrPC: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Subham Jena & Anr. v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 10
The High Court held that the provision of anticipatory bail as provided under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will be applicable to 'children-in-conflict-with-law' (CCLs). The Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra rejected the argument that since there is no provision for 'arrest' under the Juvenile Justice Act, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as 'anticipation of arrest' is a pre-condition for grant of bail. The Court said,
“…merely because the word 'arrest' has not been used in the JJ Act, cannot operate to the detriment of a child in conflict with law, who has reason to believe that he may be apprehended in a non-bailable offence. This would tantamount to placing undue restrictions on a Person's right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
'Throws Integrity Of Art To The Wolves': Orissa High Court Quashes List Of State Film Awardees Over Plagiarism & Uncredited Remakes
Case Title: Bobby Islam v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 11
The Court nullified and set aside the list of awardees for the coveted 31st Odisha State Film Awards, 2019 on the ground that two films were found to be placed in the list in utter violation of the Odisha State Films Awards Rules. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi, after verifying the allegations, discovered the movies to be plagiarised and copied from films of other languages and thus, observed:
“After ocular verification of the films, it appears that the two films, i.e., “KHUSI” & “GOLMAL LOVE” are heavily inspired from the alleged non-Odia films at least. Considering a comparison of the impugned films with the plot and scenes in the Korean film 'HOPE' and Punjabi film “CARRY ON JATTA”, it is clear that from the plethora of facts, circumstances and stated overlap that the impugned motion films are uncredited remakes of the aforementioned non-Odia films.”
S. 378 CrPC | Right To Appeal Against Acquittal Should Be Used By The State Sparingly: Orissa High Court
Case Title: State of Odisha (Vig.) v. Debasis Dixit
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 12
The Orissa High Court advised the State to exercise its right to appeal against acquittal, as provided under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., sparingly and with circumspection. While denying the leave to prefer an appeal, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo remarked,
“The right of appeal against acquittal vested in the State Government should be used sparingly and with circumspection and it is to be made only in case of public importance or where there has been a miscarriage of justice of a very grave nature.”
S.9(2) JJ Act | Court Must Undertake Inquiry Before Rendering Decision On Plea Of Juvenility Of Accused: Orissa High Court
Case Title: V. Vinay v. Srinu Patro & Anr. and another connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 13
The High Court clarified that when a plea of juvenility is made before a Court, other than a Juvenile Justice Board, it must undertake an inquiry and take evidence, if any as per the mandate of Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, before rendering any decision on the application. While setting aside an order for non-compliance of the above provision, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed:
“…when such a claim is raised before a court not being a Juvenile Justice Board, it is for the said court to make an enquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary to determine the age and to record a finding in the matter basing thereon. Of course, in doing so, the provisions under Section 94 of the Act can also be considered but the Statute requires that an enquiry should be made and if necessary, evidence may also be taken.”
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Das v. Kapileswar Samal & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 14
The Orissa High Court declined to interfere in an appeal against acquittal of some persons, which was recorded by a Magistrate Court in 1994, for allegedly cutting and removing away paddy from the complainant's field. While dismissing the appeal, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy said:
“One of the important facts, which weighed in the mind of this court is that the order of acquittal of the accused persons was recorded by the learned trial Court around 29 years back and reversing such finding of acquittal after a long lapse of time, can never be said to be in the interest of justice for a matter relating to civil dispute between the parties.”
S.498A IPC | Case Can Be Filed At A Place Where Wife Resides After Leaving Matrimonial Home On Account Of Cruelty: Orissa HC Reiterates
Case Title: Smt. Geeta Tiwari & Anr. v. State of Orissa & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 15
The Orissa High Court reiterated that a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code can be filed at a place where a woman resides after leaving or being driven out of matrimonial home on account of cruelty. While terming the aforesaid charge as a 'continuing offence', the Single Judge Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed,
“…the physical acts of cruelty have definite consequence on mental faculty of the victim of torture. Hence, the physical cruelty meted to the wife at her matrimonial home would have an adverse impact and effects on the mental health of the wife at her parental home, especially when the offence U/S. 498-A of IPC is a continuing offence and torture as meted to wife at different place would also torture the wife mentally for a longer period.”
Orissa High Court Allows Deduction To The Co-operative Society Involved In The Business Of Banking
Case Title: Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 16
The Orissa High Court granted deduction to the Co-operative Society engaged in the banking business. The Division bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman observed that the tribunal was justified in making further classification while interpreting Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act by treating it to be different from the primary agriculture rural development bank/co-operative societies.
Seashore Chit Fund Scam: Orissa High Court Declines To Quash Proceedings Against Ex-MP Rabindra Jena
Case Title: Rabindra Kumar Jena v. Republic of India (CBI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 17
The Orissa High Court dismissed a petition seeking to set aside pending criminal proceedings against former Member of Parliament (MP) from Odisha's Balasore Rabindra Kumar Jena, who is an accused in multi-crore Seashore chit fund scam. While denying relief to the ex-parliamentarian, the Single Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray said:
“It is not that the money was received through the companies owned by the Petitioner, but by him personally. So, the otherwise inference is that he must have a close nexus with Prashant Kumar Dash, the principal accused. If the relationship is not purely business or official, then it must be for any suspicious purpose and this needs to be examined in course of trial.”
'Madhu Barrister Would Have Hanged His Head In Shame': Orissa HC Criticizes Conduct Of Striking Lawyers Of Sambalpur, Grants Bail
Case Title: Sureswar Mishra v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 18
The Orissa High Court heavily criticized the unruly conducts of striking lawyers of Sambalpur while they staged a violent protest in December last year with a demand to establish a permanent Bench of the High Court in the western part of the State. While granting bail to Sureswar Mishra, the President of District Bar Association, Sambalpur and 28 other lawyers, a Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Narasingh sorrily observed,
“Birthday of grand old man of Odisha (Kula Brudha) Madhusudan Das popularly known as Madhu Barrister is celebrated every year in this State on 28th of April as “Lawyers Day”. He would have hanged his head in shame and despair knowing that the petitioners-advocates, whose licenses to practice have been suspended by the Bar Council of India, are accused of vandalizing the temple of justice.”
Invalid Assumption Of Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Against Vedanta
Case Title: Vedanta Resources Ltd. v. ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 19
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman quashed a reassessment notice issued against Vedanta Resources Ltd. (VRL) on the grounds of invalid assumption of jurisdiction. The issue raised was whether the CIT International Taxation, Bhubaneswar can exercise jurisdiction over the VRL which is a non-resident company incorporated in UK. The Court was not satisfied that the Department has been able to explain the legal basis for ACIT at Bhubaneswar exercising jurisdiction over the petitioner and issuing the notices under Section 148. It held that notices issued by ACIT at Bhubaneswar were without jurisdiction and, therefore, are unsustainable in law.
[Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act] No Absolute Bar Against Interim Release Of Seized Cattle To Accused-Owner: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Gau Gyan Foundation 'Rudrashram Gaushala' v. The State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 20
The Orissa High Court said that there is no specific rule under either the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 or the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 requiring mandatory denial of interim custody of seized cattle to the accused-owner. While interpreting the provisions of the statute and the Rules, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik said,
“…the animals may even be released in favour of the owner despite a conviction if there is no previous antecedent or he does not have any such past conduct or official record of his character which may influence the court not to handover the animals as there may be a possibility of being further exposed to cruelty.”
'Delay In Trial Offends Article 21 Everyday': Orissa HC Expedites Trials Of Alleged 'Tribal Extremists' Detained Since 8 Yrs
Case Title: D. Anita Majhi @ Mila v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 21
The Orissa High Court directed trial courts to expedite trials of cases involving three female tribal ladies who have been languishing in jail for over last eight years after being branded as 'extremists' by the State. While providing relief to the petitioners, a Division Bench of Justices Subhasis Talapatra and Savitri Ratho noted,
“…the Petitioners are languishing in custody for about 8 years. During their detention to their dismay, they were shown to be accused in some cases in which investigation is pending… This is a ploy to keep the Petitioners behind the bars. The delay in completing the trial appears un-surmountable and the Petitioners' right enshrined under Article 21 is offended every day.”
Mosquito Repellent 'Good Knight' Is An Insecticide, 4% VAT Applicable: Orissa High Court
Case Title: State of Odisha v. M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 22
The High Court held that the mosquito repellent "Good Knight" sold by Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. is an insecticide. The Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman upheld the order of the tribunal and noted that the mosquito repellent is an insecticide within the meaning of that expression in Entry 30 of Part II of Schedule B and, therefore, a 4% tax is applicable
Orissa High Court Raps Tahasildar For 'Lackadaisical Attitude' In Issuing Records Of Land Allotted To Indo-Pak War Widow
Case Title: M. Rajamma v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 23
The Orissa High Court came down heavily on the Tahasildar, Chatrapur, in Ganjam district for "lackadaisical attitude" and inaction on his part to consider the application of an octogenarian Indo-Pak war-widow to re-issue the records of her land which she lost due to the 1999 super-cyclone. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Biswanath Rath said,
“…this Court finding this to be a fit case while expressing its anxiety in the inaction of the Tahasildar, Chatrapur for over two months involving such serious issues recording the Tahasildar failed in appreciating this not an ordinary case put up before him and the case involves a War-Widow whose husband has lost his life for the Nation requesting early attention to such issues.”
Probation of Offenders Act: Orissa High Court Extends Benefit To Two Convicted '29 Yrs Ago' For Violating Rice & Paddy Control Order
Case Title: Hrusikesh Sahoo & Anr. v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 24
The Orissa High Court released two persons on probation who were convicted '29 years' back for transporting rice bags in violation of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy deemed it inappropriate to send the convicts to prison at such a delayed point of time and thus, observed-
“…the convicts are first time offenders and no previous conviction of the appellants has been proved against them and more than 29 years have elapsed in the meantime after conviction of the appellants and the convicts were aged about 34 and 39 years as on the date of their conviction and now they would be more than 63 and 68 years.”
Liability Of Insurer Commences When Premium Paid & Cover Note Issued, Irrespective Of Time Mentioned In Insurance Policy: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Smt. Renuka Sethi & Ors. v. Babu Sahu & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 25
The Orissa High Court clarified that the liability of an insurer commences from the moment the insurance premium is paid by the insured and cover note is issued to him. Therefore, an insurer cannot escape its liability merely because the insurance policy had mentioned a separate date for commencement of the policy. While fastening liability of the insurer to compensate the death of an employee which occurred in course of employment, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray said,
“…in the present facts of the case that, the insurance coverage commenced from 2 pm on 25th January, 2000 as mentioned in the cover note. When the accident took place at 4pm, i.e. 2 hours after the cover note was issued and premium received, undoubtedly the liability of the insurer cannot be absolved.”
Appearance Of AR Not Enough For Presuming Service On Assessee Under S. 292BB Of ITA: Orissa High Court
Case Title: PCIT (Central) v. Narayan Kumar Khaitan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 26
The Orissa High Court deprecated an Income Tax Authority who, despite being informed that the assessee was in judicial custody, failed to serve a notice upon him through the Superintendent of the concerned jail, in the proceedings initiated against him under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman remarked that a person in judicial custody is deprived of many constitutional rights, and thus any officer of the Government, including a Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), must pass an appropriate order requiring service of notice on the assessee, who is in judicial custody, through the Superintendent of the concerned jail.
Mere Admission Of Different Date Of Birth Not Better Proof Than School Leaving Certificate: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Management Committee, CFH Scheme, Paradip Port v. Paradip Port Workers Union & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 27
The Orissa High Court observed that mere admission by a person of a different date as his date of birth cannot stand in the face of documentary proof of date of birth like School Leaving Certificate. While providing relief to a workman against his management, a Division Bench of Justices Arindam Sinha and Sanjay Kumar Mishra said,
“This admission cannot stand in face of the documentary evidence, borne out by the school leaving certificate. School leaving certificate is one of the proofs of date of birth. Furthermore, admissions can be explained. Section 31 in Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says admissions are not conclusive proof but may operate as estoppel under the provisions thereafter contained.”
Contractual Employee Can't Be Removed From Service Without Following Rules Of Natural Justice, Orissa High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Bichitrananda Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 28
The Orissa High Court reiterated that the rules of natural justice are required to be followed before disengaging even a contractual employee. While providing relief to a junior teacher (contractual), who was removed without being provided an opportunity to defend himself, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra said:
“This Court is not impressed with the argument that being a contractual employee no rules or procedure are required to be followed before disengaging him. It is rather the settled position of law that even in case of a contractual employee the rules of natural justice are required to be followed to the hilt.”
[Motor Accident] Managerial Skills Of Deceased To Run Business Can Be Considered While Counting 'Loss Of Dependency': Orissa High Court
Case Title: Manager Legal, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Usha Agarwal & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 29
The Orissa High Court, while placing reliance upon recent decisions of the Apex Court, clarified that managerial skills and expertise of a deceased person to run his business is to be taken into account while counting the loss of dependency of his dependants, who continue his business. Reaffirming the position, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray observed,
“Perusal of afore-cited cases reveals the proposition that, for counting the loss of dependency, where the business entity subsists even after death of the deceased and is managed by the dependants, the managerial skill and expertise of the deceased to run the business is to be considered along with specific facts and circumstances brought on record.”
Case Title: Prangya Paramita Harichandan v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 30
The Orissa High Court clarified that unlike 'vertical reservation' in which principle of mobility is applicable, 'horizontal reservation' for a particular social category can only be granted to candidates coming under that social category and not beyond that. For example: horizontal quota meant for unreserved category women cannot be occupied by SC/ST/OBC category women. While simplifying the position of law, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,
“…it is evident that the principle of mobility as applicable in case of social (vertical) reservations are not applicable to special (horizontal) reservation. This implies that the special reservations like women etc. have to be confined to their respective social categories.”
S. 97 CrPC | Second Application For Search Of Persons Wrongfully Confined Can Be Entertained If New Facts & Circumstances Arise: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Amrita Ray v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 31
The Orissa High Court clarified that a second application under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not barred by the principle of res judicata and can be entertained if some new facts and circumstances arise warranting intervention. Notably, the Section provides “search for persons wrongfully confined”. While allowing the revision petition filed against the dismissal of a second application under the above provision, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra said,
“…in particular, looking at the statutory intent behind enactment of Section 97 of Cr.P.C. it can be safely held that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the filing of the subsequent application cannot be treated as barred by law.”
Assesses Failed To File Affidavit Proving Repayment Of Loans: Orissa High Court Sustains Addition On “Unsecured Loan”
Case Title: M/s. Unideep Food Processing (P) Ltd. Versus ITAT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 32
The Orissa High Court sustained the addition of unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman observed that the direction issued by the ITAT in the first round was to the effect that the AO should verify whether the assessee had repaid the amount "by calling all the creditors". Therefore, it is the AO who should have issued a summons to them to appear. Even assuming that the AO did not do so, the fact remains that the assessee did not ask for a summons to be issued.
Orissa High Court Sets Aside Order Pronounced '15 Months' After Hearing Concluded; Says Authority May Forget Parties' Submissions After So Long
Case Title: Laxmi Sahu v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 33
The Orissa High Court set aside an order by a Revenue Divisional Commissioner which was pronounced 15 months after hearing of the case concluded. Additionally, the Court directed all the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities in the State to abide by the mandate of Order 20 Rule 1, CPC which prescribes time limit for delivery of judgment. While deprecating unreasonable delay in pronouncing verdict, a Single Bench of Justice Biswanath Rath said,
“…if such mode is accepted, then disposal of such matters providing opportunity of hearing may not be a requirement and it may be opened to the adjudicatory authority to decide the matter accordingly on the basis of pleadings and objection, if any, of the respective parties, which is never the intention in setting up the Quasi-Judicial authority.”
Assesses Failed To File Affidavit Proving Repayment Of Loans: Orissa High Court Sustains Addition On “Unsecured Loan”
Case Title: M/s. Unideep Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. ITAT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 34
The Orissa High Court sustained the addition of unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman observed that the direction issued by the ITAT in the first round was to the effect that the AO should verify whether the assessee had repaid the amount "by calling all the creditors". Therefore, it is the AO who should have issued a summons to them to appear.
Kinley Water Falls Within Water, Not Aerated Or Mineral Water, Comes Within Tax Free List: Orissa High Court
Case Title: State of Odisha v. M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 35
The Orissa High Court held that the sale of packaged drinking water under the brand name 'Kinley Water' falls within the expression "water but not aerated or mineral water sold in bottles or sealed containers," which is covered under Entry No. 39 of the Tax-Free List. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Murhari Sri Raman observed that the packaged drinking water sold under such brand name is nothing but purified water.
Orissa High Court Quashes Police Circular Order Conferring 'Power Of Investigation' On Graduate Constables & CI Havildars
Case Title: Minaketan Nayak & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 36
The High Court nullified a Police Circular Order (PCO) which conferred 'power of investigation' on Graduate Constables and Crime Intelligence Havildars. While setting aside the order, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra held,
“…this Court by no stretch of imagination could presume that the legislatures while enacting Sections 156 and 157 of the Cr.P.C. were not aware of the meaning of the word “Officer”. Furthermore, while providing that the cases are to be investigated by the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station, it has also been provided that in course of investigation the OIC / IIC cannot send a person to the spot for investigation who is below the rank of an Officer as has been prescribed by the State Government in this behalf.”
Chokad Is Not An Industrial Input: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Imposing 4% VAT
Case Title: M/s. Kamadhenu Cattle & Poultry Feed Unit v. The State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 37
The Orissa High Court quashed an order imposing 4% Value-Added Tax (VAT) on wheat bran (chokad) as it is not an industrial input. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed that it was necessary for the Department to show that there was a notification issued by the State Government identifying 'Chokad' as an 'industrial input'. In the absence of such notification, the Bench held, no inference could have been drawn that the 'chokad' sold to NALCO was in fact an 'industrial input'.
“Legal System Completely Failed Him”: Orissa High Court Orders ₹10 Lakh Compensation To Wife Of Tribal Man Killed In Police Custody
Case Title: Maria Kadaisma @ Kadaiska @ Salmina v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 38
The High Court ordered the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the Odisha Police to pay an amount of rupees ten lakhs as compensation to the wife of a tribal man who was killed in their custody in 2010. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Murahari Sri Raman said it is no coincidence that the deceased tribal, who was tortured to death after being labelled a maoist with not even an iota of evidence, belonged to the poorer sections of the society. It lamented that the victim was denied his basic rights while in custody and said,
“He had no one to represent his interests or to give him legal assistance while in custody. The legal system appears to have completely failed him. The mandatory fundamental rights available to an arrested person as spelt out in Article 22(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India were violated with impunity in this case first by the CRPF and then the police.”
Unrealistic To Expect GST Return Filing Without Actual Commencement Of Business: Orissa High Court Directs Dept. To Process Licence Application
Case Title: M/s. Galaxy Bar and Restaurant, Nayagarh v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 39
The Orissa High Court held that license application should not be rejected only because a GST return has not been filed yet, since it is unrealistic to expect that to happen without the actual commencement of its business. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed that unless the petitioner is issued a license and is able to commence its business, the question of filing a GST return would not arise.
Section 311 CrPC | Orissa High Court Allows Recall Of Witness 26 Yrs After He Was Cross-Examined & Discharged
Case Title: Rudra Narayan Sahu v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 40
The Orissa High Court allowed a petition filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after a delay of '26 years' for recalling a witness who was cross-examined and discharged in 1997. While stressing on the right of the accused to fair trial, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,
“This is a classic case where the question of belated justice is pitted against the right of the accused to a fair trial. Having regard to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution of India, this Court would rather lean in favour of the latter than the former so that the end result i.e., of rendering of justice to the parties is actually realised.”
Witchcraft Double Murder: Orissa High Court Issues Notice To Life Convicts Proposing To Impose Higher Punishment
Case Title: Basanta Dehury & Ors. v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 41
While upholding conviction of three persons for double murder on suspicion of witchcraft, the Orissa High Court issued notice to them proposing to impose higher sentence than life imprisonment which was imposed by the Trial Court. Expressing doubt over adequacy of the sentence for such ghastly crime by means of beheading, the Division Bench of Justice Debabrata Dash and Justice Sashikanta Mishra ordered,
“…in exercise of the revisional power under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we propose to issue notice to these accused persons to have their say on the adequacy of sentence and as to why they should not be visited with the sentence of higher degree.”
Promissory Estoppel Not To Apply In Favour Of Student Who Despite Knowledge Of Failure In Intermediate Exam Acquired Higher Qualification: Orissa HC Full Bench
Case Title: Litumanjari Pradhan v. Chairman, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Bhubaneswar & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 42
A Full Bench of Orissa High Court answered a reference deciding the correctness of a decision rendered by a Division Bench wherein it was held that the rule of estoppel will apply in favour of a student, who without knowing that he has failed in matriculation/intermediate examination, gets higher education and joins service. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar, Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman said the decision of the Division Bench is no longer good law.
“It is no doubt true that the Courts have, more often than not, leaned in favour of the students, but as the things stand, a line must be drawn between cases where there have been a bona fide error and cases where the circumstances are dubious,” said the court.
Orissa High Court Asks Collector To Reconsider Appeal For Issuance Of ST Certificate On Basis Of Mother's Tribe
Case Title: Jayanti Naik v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 43
The Orissa High Court ordered an appellate authority (collector) to reconsider an appeal against denial of tribe certificate to a boy who was brought up by his tribal mother. The woman had been deserted by her non-tribal husband. While giving relief to the petitioner, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha observed,
“The appellate authority thereafter went on to take view that the Tahsildar had properly followed the procedures as per rules and regulations, while rejecting the application of appellant. Assertion of petitioner on facts regarding bringing up of her son in the tribal community was not even looked at.”
Section 138, NI Act | Proceedings Can't Be Invalidated Merely Because Costs For Miscellaneous Expenses Claimed Alongwith Cheque Amount: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Hemalata Mohapatra v. Bijay Kumar Pradhani
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 44
The Orissa High Court held that a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be invalidated only because the notice claims costs for some miscellaneous expenses alongside demanding the cheque amount. While relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed,
“…in view of the settled legal position in K.R. Indira (supra), the irresistible conclusion is that the defect in notice cannot invalidate the proceeding when the demand is only for the cheque amount with additional claim towards the miscellaneous expenses…”
“Criminal Trial Is Not IPL T20 Match”: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction As Defence Counsel Not Granted Reasonable Time For Preparation
Case Title: Khudia @ Khudiram Tudu v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 45
The Orissa High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on a rape accused on the ground that the State Defence Counsel, who represented him in the Trial Court, was neither supplied with police papers nor given a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the cross-examination of the victim. Expressing dissatisfaction over the hurried-up manner in which the cross-examination was completed, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed,
“Engaging a new State Defence Counsel without providing him police papers and just asking him to inspect the case record and to cross-examine the victim and also taking consent from him to conclude the cross-examination on that day itself, in my humble view, is a gross illegality and the accused has been seriously prejudiced by such action of the trial Court. A criminal trial is not an IPL T20 match where every 'substitute player' can be an 'impact player'.”
Orissa High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against 146 Villagers Who Gathered In Church Amid COVID Restrictions To Offer Prayers For Departed Soul
Case Title: Midiyan Pani & Ors. v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 46
The Court quashed a criminal case pending against 146 villagers of a village in Rayagada district for allegedly congregating in a Church to offer prayers for a departed soul at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic was prevailing and government guidelines restricting gatherings were imposed. While granting relief, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra said,
“…this Court finds lack of evidence of any criminal intention on the part of the Petitioners, rather, the congregation was for a pious reason to pray for a departed soul. Obviously, no criminality can be attributed in such a case.”
Different Amount Mentioned In Tax Invoice And E-Way Bill: Orissa High Court Orders Issuance Of Fresh Assessment Order
Case Title: M/s. Jena Trading and Co. v. CT and GST Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 47
The Orissa High Court held that different amounts mentioned in a tax invoice and e-Way Bill indicate a palpable error in the waybill, which may be construed as a human error. The Division Bench of Justice Bidyut Ranjan Sarangi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman quashed the assessment order and remitted the matter back to the assessing authority for reconsideration in accordance with the law.
Executive Magistrate Not Empowered To Record Confession For Offences Under Essential Commodities Act: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Ananda Ch. Sahu v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 48
The Orissa High Court held that an Executive Magistrate is not empowered to record confession for offences committed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It also held that in absence of any specific procedure governing recording of confession and trial under the Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply. While clarifying the position of law, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,
“The very words, 'or under any other law for the time being in force' implies that investigations conducted in respect of offences under Special Acts like the Essential Commodities Act shall also be governed by the provisions under Section 164 of CrPC unless a specific procedure is laid down in such Act(s).”
Wife Can't Prosecute Extra-Marital Partner Of Husband For Domestic Violence Only Because She Lived In Their House: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Rabindra Kumar Mishra & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 49
The Orissa High Court observed that an illicit/extra-marital partner of husband cannot be prosecuted under the Domestic Violence Act by wife merely because she lived in the house of the couple. The Court said, both the women (wife and extra-marital partner) do not share 'domestic relationship' as per Section 2(f) of the Act, which is a pre-condition to invoke the provisions of the statute, merely because they stayed under the same roof.
Section 329(2) CrPC | Physical Presence Of Accused Essential For Determining Unsoundness Of Mind Making Him Incapable To Enter Defence: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Prafulla Chandra Mohapatra @ Prusty v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 50
The Orissa High Court clarified that physical presence of accused in the Court is essential, under Section 329(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to assess if unsoundness of mind renders him incapable to enter defence. It underlined that the concerned Court must not pass order to that effect without examining the accused, merely basing upon medical certificate. While elucidating the point of law, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik said,
“…to determine the mental faculty of the accused and whether he is capable to defend himself, it shall have to be assessed by the Court and for the said purpose his examination is necessary and the same is the statutory mandate. Merely by referring to the medical papers and certificate of the Medical Board, a Court is not to pass any such order either discharging him or postponing the trial.”
Case Title: Raja @ Raj Kishore Behera & Anr. v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 51
The Orissa High Court criticised a Magistrate and a Sessions Judge for rejecting default bail of two persons accused of murder, despite the fact that the charge-sheet was not filed before the Court within the stipulated statutory period. While setting aside the orders of both the Courts below, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra said:
“It must be kept in mind that the Court is not supposed to act as an agent of the prosecution so as to be left at its mercy. When the question of liberty of a person is involved, it is expected that the Court shall rise to the occasion to dispense justice without in the least aligning itself with any party whatsoever. It has been emphasized time and again that right to default bail is akin to the fundamental right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title: Jeevanjyoti Mohanty & Ors. v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 52
The Orissa High Court quashed pending criminal proceedings against multiple former students of Madhusudan Law College, Cuttack for obstructing a public road in the course of staging a protest against the then Principal of the College back in 2017. Noting undue delay in submission of chargesheet as well as framing of charges and having regard for the future prospects of the students concerned, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik held,
“Such delay though may not be claimed unusual under normal circumstances but when pitted against the lives and career of the petitioners who are having high hopes and aspiration to grow and prosper, it is quite considerable and they cannot be allowed to face a life of uncertainty. Any further delay, as according to the Court, could result in persecution and hence, it is a fit case to bring an end to the proceeding so as to advance the cause of justice.”
Case Title: Barika Pradhan v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 53
The Orissa High Court clarified that non-compliance of mandate under Section 27(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 does not prejudice the rights of an accused. The provision requires girl victims to be medically examined only by female doctors. While highlighting the objective behind incorporation of the said provision, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed,
“The sanguine purpose is to safeguard the interest and well-being of the children at every stage of judicial proceeding. Section 27(2) of the POCSO Act has been designed to protect the girl child from embarrassment and to ensure that she is comfortable, as it was thought to be in the best interest of the girl child. It is not meant to be a safeguard in favour of the accused.”
Orissa High Court Orders Fresh Crime Branch Probe Into Decade Old Alleged 'Honour Killing' Case
Case Title: Ratnalu Omprakash v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 54
The Orissa High Court ordered fresh investigation by the Crime Branch into over a decade old 'honour killing' of a man in Rayagada district. While handing over the responsibility to the agency, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi said,
“On perusal of the materials available in the case diary it reveals that there are some infirmities especially with respect to statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the deceased's father that this case has turned out to be a case of suicide. Petitioner finds that there are a lot of disjoints in the prosecution's investigation. However, the signature of the petitioner is not there and he is also not agreeable what has been written in the said statement.”
Case Title: Shiva @ Gurucharan Singh v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 55
A Division Bench of Justice Debabrata Dash and Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held that even if a person, who was convicted by trial court, does not prefer appeal against his conviction and sentence, the High Court can still invoke its inherent power under Sections 482 and 401 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure to acquit him of charges which cannot be sustained against him on the basis of available evidence.
Case Title: Chhayakant Acharya v. Samitav Pani
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 56
The Orissa High Court held that a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be allowed to amend his complaint petition to change the loan amount which formed the basis of the complaint, especially when he adduced evidence stating the same amount. While setting aside an order allowing such amendment, a Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,
“Nevertheless, facts remains that the loan amount cannot undergo a change because the same forms the very basis of the complaint. This would certainly change the very nature and character of the case. Obviously, the complainant cannot be permitted to change the very foundation of his case midway during trial.”
Case Title: Basi Bewa & Ors. v. Raimani Majhiani
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 57
The Orissa High Court clarified that under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, a specimen document must be admitted by all the parties to the dispute before that is used for comparison of hand-writing with disputed signature or document. While explaining the requirement under the said provision, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray said,
“Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers the court to compare writings with specimen or admitted documents. The phrase 'admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court' used in section 73 contemplates that the specimen document taken for comparison of writing or signature in the purported document must be undisputed one and all parties to the dispute must admit the specimen signature or writing in the base document.”
Case Title: Latika Sahoo & Ors. v. Ramesh Nayak & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 58
The Orissa High Court reiterated that the expression “use of motor vehicles” employed under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) includes accident caused by the offending vehicle when it is not moving and is in static/standing position. While setting aside a contrary order of the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, a Single Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray observed,
“…the deceased was invited by the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle to help him for retrieving the offending vehicle from the ditch and in course of such retreivation the accident took place as the offending truck capsized on the deceased. Therefore keeping in view the extended explanation of the clause “use of motor vehicle”, it is concluded that the deceased died out of such injuries arising out of the use of the offending truck”
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Acharya v. Ratinakar Swain
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 59
The High Court set aside the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, wherein the Tribunal had directed the appointment of an expert evaluator for evaluating the assets of the counter-claimant in the arbitral proceedings involving money claims. While noting that the claims and counter claims raised by the parties were simply money claims, the Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha held that expanding the scope of the arbitral reference by including evaluation of assets, would expose the petitioner to the risk of an award being passed beyond the four corners of the reference.
Case Title: Suresh Chandra Sahoo @ Sura @ Sarat Chandra Sahoo @ Somanath v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 60
The Orissa High Court criticised a Special NDPS Judge for not applying 'judicial mind' while denying default bail to an accused person basing upon charge-sheet submitted against a co-accused. Terming the rejection order as 'blatantly illegal', the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,
“It has also been emphasized time and again that the right to be released on default bail is akin to the fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. From what has been narrated hereinbefore, it is more than evident that learned Special Judge was sadly not alive to this Constitutional obligation.”
Case Title: Mrs. X v. Mr. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 61
The High Court imposed costs of Rs. 25,000/- on a wife for suppressing the timeline fixed by the Supreme Court, while allowing transfer of the case, for disposal of the marital dispute by the Family Court. Observing that she made an attempt to mislead the Court to obtain a favourable order, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Krushna Ram Mohapatra said,
“…this Court with pain observes that the Petitioner has suppressed the material facts before this Court in the writ petition, more particularly the timeline fixed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. While moving the interim application also, it was not brought to the notice of the Court that Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of the transfer application, has observed that the transferee Court should make an endeavour for disposal of the matrimonial proceeding within six months.”
Case Title: State of Odisha & Anr. v. Joseph Barik [and batch of other appeals]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 62
The Orissa High Court reiterated that ad-hoc or regular promotion cannot be granted to a government servant making it contingent upon the outcome of the criminal case pending against him. While setting aside the order of the Single Judge who permitted such promotions to a number of government employees, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed,
“…it is not possible for this Court to sustain the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge in the present cases directing the Appellants to grant regular promotion to the Respondents even with the caveat that such promotion would be subject to the outcome of the criminal case against such government servant.”
Case Title: Nesar Ahmed Khan v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 63
The Orissa High Court clarified that Muslims cannot seek adoption of minor children under their personal laws and they must strictly follow the prescriptions laid down under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act to undertake any such adoption. While passing order for restoration of custody of a minor girl with her father, from the couple who claimed to have adopted the child, the Division Bench of Justice Subhasis Talapatra and Justice Savitri Ratho observed,
“True it is that a Muslim can adopt a surrendered child but they have to follow the stringent procedure as laid down under the JJ Act and the Rules made thereunder, but not at their whim. So generally in the Islamic countries instead of adoption the guardianship is provided to a minor who needs care and protection. As such, we hold that the claim of adoption is unsustainable in law.”
Case Title: Mantu Das v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 64
The Orissa High Court cautioned both the Union and State Governments that they must not deny benefits of different welfare schemes to the needy people belonging to vulnerable sections only because they do not possess identity proof like Aadhaar Card or mobile number. While hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pertaining to serious condition that has emerged in Jajpur district due to severe malnutrition of children, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed,
“…this needs to be made abundantly clear at both the State level as well as the National level since this welfare schemes are meant to cater to the needs of the most vulnerable and poor sections of our society who cannot be excluded on any ground including the lack of an Aadhaar Card or a mobile phone. The fact is that there are still several poor and vulnerable individuals, in the State of Odisha and in the country, who may not possess either.”
Case Title: Sk. Hussain & Ors. v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 65
The Orissa High Court criticised police for showing lackadaisical attitude in not producing before the Court some persons arrested under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, within the statutory period of 24 hours. It also rebuked the Special NDPS Judge for not granting bail to them despite such delay. While terming the detention to be 'illegal' and in violation of constitutional provision, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,
“Finally, by referring to the ground of illegal detention as 'flimsy', learned Special Judge has only displayed a lack of sensitivity to the Constitutional obligation imposed upon him as a Court of law. This Court has therefore, no hesitation in holding that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.”
Case Title: Smt. Jayanti Das v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 66
The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the circular dated May 19, 2023 issued by the Reserve Bank of India which announced discontinuance from circulation of ₹2000 notes and allowed people to get them exchanged at banks without any identity proof. While terming the petition to be a 'publicity interest litigation', the Vacation Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed,
“Law is well settled a public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, a publicity seeking is not lurking… A publicity interest litigation should be nipped in the bud so that valuable time of the Court is saved which can be effectively utilized in reducing huge pendency of cases.”
Case Title: Madhusudan Pujapanda v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 67
The Division Bench of Justice SK Sahoo and Justice MS Raman issued a slew of directions to the Puri District Administration and Lord Alarnath temple committee for smooth and comfortable darshan of Lord Alarnath by lakhs of devotees during the 'Anasara', a two-week period when Lord Jagannath is believed to manifest through Lord Alarnath. The directions, inter alia, included battery cars for old and differently abled people and arrangement of mobile toilets for devotees.
GST Tribunal Not Constituted: Orissa High Court Condones Delay And Stays GST Demand
Case Title: M/s. Laxman Barik v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Balasore & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 68
The Orissa High Court stayed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) demand subject to deposit of tax as the GST Tribunal was not constituted. The bench of Justice B.R. Sarangi and Justice M.S. Raman observed that since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching the 2nd Appellate Tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, as an interim measure subject to the petitioner depositing the entire tax demand within a period of four weeks, the rest of the demand shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition.
Case Title: Manish Agarwal v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 69
The Orissa High Court quashed the murder charge levelled against IAS officer Manish Agarwal, a former Collector of the district of Malkangiri, for mysterious death of his Personal Assistant (PA) in 2019. However, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra sustained the charge of abetment to suicide and criminal conspiracy against the ex-District Magistrate and other accused persons and held,
“The foregoing narration relating to the events leading to commission of suicide by the deceased would prima facie, show that all the three accused persons had acted in unison to belittle the deceased in several ways and on multiple occasions which caused him to be mentally upset.”
Case Title: State of Orissa v. Mangulu Munda & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 70
The Orissa High Court upheld the order of acquittal in favour of three persons accused of committing murder of a lady in 2001 suspecting her to be a 'witch'. While extending 'benefit of doubt' to the accused, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice Gourishankar Satapathy said,
“By that yardstick, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution failed to meet the requisite standard. The statements purportedly made by the accused leading to the recovery of the body of the deceased were made at a time when they were not in police custody and, therefore, could not be relied upon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. This further weakened the case of the prosecution.”
Case Title: Swadheen Kumar Rout v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 71
The Orissa High Court quashed pending criminal proceedings against an Input Editor of the news agency named Odisha Television Network (OTV) for telecasting a conversation between a Covid-19 patient and another person wherein the patient criticised certain inactions of the State Government in tackling the COVID pandemic. The Single Judge Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar underlined the importance of 'press freedom' and was satisfied that the offences under which the FIR was registered were not even prima facie made out against the petitioner and the continuation of such vexatious criminal case against him is likely to have a 'chilling effect' on press freedom
Orissa High Court Upholds Conviction Of 'Tantrik' For Trafficking & Repeatedly Raping Minor Girl
Case Title: Madhusudan Das v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 72
The High Court upheld the order of conviction and sentences imposed upon a 'tantrik' for kidnapping and trafficking a minor girl out of the lawful guardianship of her parents and for repeatedly committing sexual intercourse with her against her will. While denying relief to the accused, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo said,
“It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the prosecution has proved that the appellant was a 'Tantrik' who performed some kind of puja in the house of the victim…he created a belief in the mind of the victim and her family members by his miraculous activity which may be one of the factors for which the victim left the house alone when the appellant told her to leave…In such state of affairs, the non-protest of the victim before anybody while in the company of the appellant cannot be a factor to disbelieve the prosecution case.”
Case Title: Deepak Oram v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 73
The Orissa High Court clarified that there is no strict rule that an 'absconding accused' must be given the benefit of acquittal in case his co-accused are acquitted of the same charges. While denying relief to a person accused of committing culpable homicide, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho said,
“…it is apparent that there is no universal rule that in each and every case of acquittal of a co accused, the case against an absconding co accused has to be quashed. When the conclusion in the subsequent trial can be predicted with certainty that there is no chance of conviction of such co accused, valuable time and resources of the trial court should not be wasted for holding such a trial.”
Case Title: Dilu Jojo v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 74
The Orissa High Court held that undressing a girl under the age of 12 years, sleeping over her and merely asking her to penetrate her private part with male organ of the accused does not amount to rape. However, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo was of the opinion that such act would come under the purview of 'aggravated sexual assault' punishable under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the 'POCSO Act'). While modifying the order of conviction against the accused-appellant, the Bench noted,
“The evidence of the victim (P.W.1) in her examination-in-chief is that the appellant undressed her and made her to sleep on the stone and he slept over her and even her statement before the police which she admitted to have stated is that the appellant closed her mouth and told her to put his penis inside her mouth and further told her to put his penis into her vagina. In my humble view, none of such act of the appellant would come within the definition of 'rape' as defined in section 375 of the I.P.C. or 'penetrative sexual assault' as defined in section 3 of the POCSO Act.”
Case Title: Bandhna Toppo v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 75
The Orissa High Court ordered reinvestigation by CID (Crime Branch) into a suspicious death case where former Hockey Player Birendra Lakra is an accused. While underlining shoddy investigation by the police, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,
“In fact, even the evidence collected by the I.O. is not such as would completely rule out foul play. There are glaring gaps in the investigation as discussed hereinabove, for which, it cannot be so easily concluded that the death of the deceased was certainly due to suicidal hanging and nothing else.”
Case Title: Yagnaseni Patel v. The General Manager, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 76
The Orissa High Court reiterated daughters' entitlement to inherit ancestral property in view of their equal coparcenary rights, as were conferred on them by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, irrespective of date of death of their fathers. Following the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in its landmark decision in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., the Division Bench of Justice Bidyut Ranjan Sarangi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held,
The amendment is that even in a joint family governed by the Mitakshara law the daughter of a coparcener is made as good a coparcener as a son. She has the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son. She has a right to agitate in respect of her share in the joint family property. She carries the same liabilities and disabilities as a son does.”
Case Title: Swornalata Dash v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 77
The Orissa High Court observed that denial of maternity leave is against the fundamental right to life with dignity of women as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution. While providing relief to a teacher of government-aided school, the Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held,
“If a woman employee is denied this basic human right it would be an assault on her dignity as an individual and thereby offend her fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article-21 of the Constitution, which has been interpreted to mean life with dignity.”
Case Title: Chinmaya Sahu v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 78
The Orissa High Court held that bail granted under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be cancelled by the same Court and that can only be done by the Court of Sessions or High Court under Section 439(2) of the Code. While clarifying the position of law, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,
“Section 436 Cr.P.C. itself does not contain any provision for cancellation of bail. However, Sub-Section (2) of Section 439 of Cr.P.C. appears to be only the provision conferring such power, but only on the High Court or Court of Session…”
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Das v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 79
The Orissa High Court held that Courts should not initiate criminal proceedings against sureties if they seek to discharge themselves. The Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo ruled that Courts must comply with the mandate of Section 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and should give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the sureties before their bonds are forfeited.
“The object of taking surety, inter alia, is for the purpose of ensuring the availability of an accused before the Court by the surety when the dates of trial are fixed and on the date of pronouncement of judgment. The terms of a bond have to be construed strictly. When the bond is forfeited, it is the duty of the Court to record the grounds of proof on which the forfeiture is based. Nowhere it is provided that when a surety seeks to discharge himself, the Court concerned shall initiate criminal proceedings against him,” the Court observed.
Case Title: Bapun Singh v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 80
The Orissa High Court held that a convict should not be sentenced both under Section 363 (punishment for kidnapping) and Section 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her for marriage etc.) of the Indian Penal Code as Section 366 squarely covers the substantive punishment which is prescribed under Section 363. Clarifying the procedure to be adopted by the trial Courts while sentencing, the Single Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed,
“The substantive offence as provided under section 363 of the I.P.C. is squarely covered under section 366 of the I.P.C., which is a higher offence. Therefore, in view of the mandate under section 71 of the I.P.C., there is absolutely no need to award separate sentence under section 363 of I.P.C. as it has merged in the sentence imposed under Section 366 I.P.C.”
Case Title: Duryodhan Majhi @ Durja v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 81
The Orissa High Court held that 'School Leaving Certificate' (SLC) has no independent evidentiary value and the same cannot be solely relied upon to prove the date of birth of victims in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). While elaborating the position of law, the Single Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed,
“S.L.C. has no independent evidentiary value which can be solely put to use to prove someone's date of birth. This holds true even more when a student moves out of her original school, takes admission in another school and seeks to record her date of birth in the admission register of the new school on the sole basis of the S.L.C. obtained from the previous school. Any tampering in original date of birth, as recorded in the previous school register, cannot be ruled out in S.L.C.”
Case Title: Santanu Kaudi v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 82
The Orissa High Court set aside the order of conviction passed against a rape accused observing that the victim of the offence used to accompany him regularly to a jungle and was keeping sexual relation with him despite knowing fully well that he is married. While referring the sexual act to be consensual, the Single Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo held,
“She was freely exercising her choice in accompanying the appellant deep into the jungle to have sexual act being conscious of the fact that their marriage was not possible. All the circumstances lead to the conclusion that she freely, voluntarily and consciously consented to having sexual intercourse with the appellant and her consent was not the consequence of any misconception of fact.”
Case Title: Sanu Munda v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 83
The Orissa High Court acquitted a man accused of committing rape on his sister-in-law observing that she being a grown-up lady, having experience of sexual intercourse, failed to offer resistance to the alleged forceful act. While giving relief to the accused-appellant, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo said,
“If the victim, who is a grown up lady and having experience of sex, fails to offer sufficient resistance to the accused who was attempting to have sex with her single-handedly, the Court may find that there was no force or the said act was not against her will.”
Case Title: Saroj Sahoo v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 84
The Orissa High Court quashed a criminal case pending against a man who was accused of raping a woman on false promise of marriage. While giving relief to the accused, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra was of the view that the victim tried to foist a false case upon the accused to pressurize him and observed,
“…if the facts of the case and the materials on record are viewed objectively it would reveal an apparent attempt by the victim to entangle the accused in a criminal case apparently to coerce him into a marital relationship.”
Case Title: TB v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 85
The Orissa High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on a man for raping and sexually assaulting his minor daughter. While terming the offence to be 'bestial' and 'sheer betrayal of trust and faith' of the little daughter, the Single Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed,
“In this context, it is worthwhile to quote the Sanskrit shloka, “यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तत्र देवता” which means that the Almighty God resides where women are worshipped. Where women are honoured, divinity blossoms there. It highlights the importance of how women should be treated with dignity and respect. There is no doubt that being in a position of authority and trust, the appellant misused his position and sexually exploited his innocent minor daughter and raped her. Thus, the ingredients under section 376(2)(f) are made out in this case.”
Case Title: Dr. Biswa Mohan Mishra v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 86
The Orissa High Court that in India, the position of a Doctor is considered to be next to God, however, certain medical practitioners are acting in utter disregard to human life in expectation of pecuniary advantage to malign in the noble profession. The Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapthy further observed:
"It is true that no sensible professional, more particularly a Doctor would intentionally commit an act or omit to do an act which would result in loss of life. A medical practitioner faced with an emergency situation would definitely try his level best to treat the patient and ordinarily could not leave his patient to die. The position of Doctor in India as accepted by public generally is next to God, but there are certain instances/aberration of course a few in number…"
Orissa High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Alleged Manipulation In JEE Mains Candidate's Marks
Case Title: Anshuman Kanungo v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 87
The Orissa High Court ordered an enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged manipulation in the mark-sheets of a JEE (Mains) candidate which resulted in denial of his admission in premiere institutes like IITs and NITs. While criticising the National Testing Agency (NTA) for the avoidable error, the Division Bench of Dr. Justice Bidyut Ranjan Sarangi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed,
“The career of a student being involved in this case, this Court is of the considered view that the action of the opposite party no.4 is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law.”
Case Title: Ganesh Munda @ Balabhadra Munda @ Sunidhi v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 88
The Orissa High Court upheld the conviction of a man for committing rape upon a seven year old child. While terming the crime to be 'heinous', the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo said,
“In the case in hand, the victim did not try to cover-up the incident at any point of time; rather she immediately reported the same to her parents. Such conduct on the part of the victim manifests the crying demand of a ravaged soul for protection and justice, which is not only relevant but also incriminating against the appellant.”
Case Title: Raja @ Rajendra Prasad Swain @ Rajendra Pratap Swain v. Union of India, R.P.F.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 89
The Orissa High Court quashed a criminal case pending against Odisha's Cabinet Minister of Agriculture & Farm Empowerment Ranendra Pratap Swain who was accused of leading a 'rail roko' (obstructing railway movement) in 2016 to protest against Chhattisgarh Government's decision to construct a barrage over river Mahanadi. While granting relief to the senior politician from the ruling party Biju Janata Dal (BJD), the Single Judge Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held,
“…the learned J.M.F.C., Sundergarh while taking cognizance of offence had ignored to address the issue of limitation and simply took cognizance of offence and issued process against the accused petitioner ignoring the valuable right of accused petitioner which cannot be rectified since cognizance of offence after the statutory period is otherwise an abuse of process of Court”
Case Title: Madhusmita Samant v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 90
In a controversial development, a Single Judge Bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Justice Biswanath Rath criticized and disapproved the manner in which a previous order rendered by him was declared not to be a 'precedent' by a Division Bench headed by former Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and also comprising Justice Gourishankar Satapathy. While expressing disappointment over the brief order passed by the Division Bench, Justice Rath observed,
“…this Court in its entire practice period of 28 years and judgeship of 9 years has never come across in taking out the effect of such judgments in just three lines order by a higher Bench. There may not be any misunderstanding that the Division Bench has no jurisdiction, however, the Division Bench in such matter is required to apply its mind and give reason in taking out effect of such judgments otherwise such judgments will not be applicable in the legal parlance.”
Case Title: Pradeepta Kumar Praharaj v. State of Odisha (Vig.)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 91
The High Court acquitted a doctor who was accused of demanding and receiving ₹300 in 1998 for issuing a favourable medical certificate to a person in a criminal case. While criticising the trial Court judgment to be 'one-sided' against the appellant-doctor, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed,
“After careful consideration of the evidence on record, I am of the humble view that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities. The reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court is faulty and genuine material evidence available on record in favour of the appellant has been overlooked and it appears that the impugned judgment is one-sided in favour of the prosecution.”
Case Title: National Aluminum Company Ltd v. Orissa Coal Chem Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 92
The High Court held that an arbitral award passed by the MSEF Council without deciding the Section 16 application filed by the buyer challenging its jurisdiction is liable to be set aside. The Court held that it is incumbent upon the Council to decide such application, more so, when Court had also directed it to decide the same.
Case Title: State of Odisha (G.A. Vigilance) v. Sanjubala Rout
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 93
The Orissa High Court upheld the order of acquittal passed in favour of an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) who was accused of demanding and accepting ₹400 bribe for issuing financial benefit under the Janani Surakhya Yojana (JSY) to a lady who delivered her baby in a government hospital. While dismissing the appeal preferred by the Vigilance Department against the order of acquittal of the respondent-nurse, the Single Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo held,
“There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. The learned trial Judge has not ignored any material evidence on record and after assessing it carefully, he has reached at the conclusion and has given benefit of doubt to the respondent. Therefore, it is not a fit case where the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is to be interfered with.”
Case Title: Sukumar Gouda v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 94
The Orissa High Court upheld the conviction of a brother for repeatedly committing rape on his 14-year-old minor sister which resulted in her pregnancy. The Single Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo pronounced the verdict on 'Raksha Bandhan', in open court. It termed the incident to be 'unfortunate' and observed,
“It is both shocking as well as ironical to hear this case and render the judgment on 'Raksha Bandhan' day, on which day a brother takes the solemn pledge not only to protect his sister but also to nurture her till his last breath. Here is a case where the accusation has been levelled against an elder brother to have committed rape on her own sister when she was hardly fourteen years of age and to have made her pregnant for which she delivered a girl child...A brother is a protector, a confidant and a life-long friend. Brothers and sisters share a unique bond that nothing can replace. Sister is a treasure beyond measure. A brother is a hero in disguise, a protector and a role model.”
Writ Of Habeas Corpus Can't Be Issued To Trace Out 'Missing Persons': Orissa High Court
Case Title: Nimananda Biswal v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 95
The Orissa High Court reiterated that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued to trace out 'missing persons' as proving 'illegal detention' by a particular person is a pre-condition before the said writ can be put to use. While declining to grant relief to the petitioner praying for issuance of the writ to trace out her daughter, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed,
“Writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued in a casual and routine manner. Though it is a writ of right, it is not a writ of course. The writ of habeas corpus is festinum remedium and power can be exercised in clear case. Illegal confinement is a pre-condition to issue a writ of habeas corpus.”
Case Title: Satrughna Samal v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 96
The Orissa High Court directed all the medical professionals to desist from conducting 'two-finger test' on the victims of sexual assaults to ascertain their virginity. The Single Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo reiterated that the said test is unconstitutional being averse to the invaluable dignity of the victims of sexual assault and thus observed,
“The medical professionals while conducting medical examination on the victims of rape and sexual assault cases should desist from two-finger test in the private part of the victim which is also known as virginity test as the test violates the right of such victims to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity and hence, not at all permissible under the law. It is no less than adding an unforgettable insult to an unhealed injury.”
Case Title: Babujan @ Sk. Sabjan v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 97
The Orissa High Court held that an order of cognizance cannot be quashed merely because the police conducted 'further investigation' under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without obtaining formal permission from the Court. While refusing to quash the order of cognizance against the petitioner, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed,
“The order taking cognizance of offences cannot be questioned merely because the Police has not obtained the formal permission to investigate, either by mistake or otherwise and on that score, the order taking cognizance of offence cannot be quashed, when the materials collected by the Investigating Agencies disclose the very ingredients of the offences, under which the cognizance is taken.”
Notaries Cannot Register Marriage Or Issue Marriage Certificates: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Partha Sarathi Das v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 98
The Orissa High Court reiterated that 'notaries' cannot register marriage as they are not authorised to do so under the Notaries Act, 1952. The Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, while asking them to abstain from issuing marriage certificates, observed:
“Due to such extra-legal and subterfuge arrangements by the Notaries, parties are made to believe that they are legally married when in fact their marriage do not have even the slightest of legal sanctity.”
Case Title: Kamal Franklin Patra @ Raja v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 99
The Orissa High Court held that the trial Courts must avoid giving generic reasons and must provide specific factors while imposing higher than the minimum sentences prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. While clarifying the mandate under Section 32B of the Act, which provides for factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo held,
“It is not at all advisable for the trial Court to provide general reasons without being specific as to which particular factor appealed to its judicial mind for which it was compelled to resort to the exceptions provided under section 32-B rather than following the main provision. Failure on the part of the concerned Court to pass a reasoned order of sentence leads to unwanted and blatant infringement of the precious right to liberty of a convict.”
Case Title: Biyat Pragya Tripathy v. Government of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 100
The Orissa High Court gave last chance to authorities under both the Union and the State Government to implement the mandate under Section 19(b) of the Sexual Harassment of Women and Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (the 'POSH Act'). The said provision requires all the employers to display at any conspicuous place in the workplace, the penal consequences of sexual harassments; and the order constituting the Internal Committee constituted under Section 4(1).
'Orissa Association For The Blind' Not State Under Article 12: High Court
Case Title: Anita Manjari Rout v. President, Orissa Association for the Blind, Odisha Bhubaneswar & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 101
The High Court held that the 'Orissa Association for the Blind' does not come under the definition of 'State' as provided under Article 12 of the Constitution and thus, it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. While rejecting a writ petition filed by an employee against the organisation, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy held,
“…this Court is of the view that in order to be covered within the definition of Article-12 of the Constitution of India, the guideline framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Hasia as cited (supra) has to be fulfilled.”
Case Title: Bada Majhi v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 102
The Orissa High acquitted a man accused of outraging the modesty of his aunt, being associated with other accused persons including his brother, in a 31-year-old-case. While giving relief to the appellant, the Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,
“Learned Sessions Judge therefore, could not persuade himself to believe that an elder brother and younger brother would jointly commit rape on their aunt… To reiterate, a person can hardly be expected to outrage the modesty of his aunt being associated with his younger brother.”
Case Title: Shankarlal Patwari v. Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 103
The Orissa High Court held that an advocate cannot be blamed for sheer negligence of a party resulting in considerable delay in compliance of Court's order. While denying condonation of delay to the petitioner, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Subhasis Talapatra and Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed,
“It is very easy to change lawyer and to put blame on the earlier lawyer for his/her negligence, but the Court cannot turn a blind eye to the surrounding circumstances, eventualities and most importantly, the conducts of the party before it marches on to believe the allegations levelled by the party against his Advocate as a gospel truth.”
Case Title: Samir Mohanty v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 104
The Orissa High Court directed the State to constitute a High-Level Committee to supervise the preparation of inventory of the Ratna Bhandar, if so required by the Shri Jagannath Temple Management Committee (SJTMC). While disposing of a PIL seeking opening and immediate repair of the interior walls of the Ratna Bhandar, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Subhasis Talapatra and Justice Savitri Ratho denied to interfere in the working of SJTMC and observed,
“As the apex Court has observed, we are to keep our faith in the SJTMC in management of the Ratna Bhandar and its structure. If there had been any sense of urgency, we believe that the Superintending Archaeologist would have advised the SJTMC accordingly.”
Case Title: Bana Majhi v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 105
The Orissa High Court upheld the order of conviction handed down to six contractors for abducting two workers, forcing them to work for a number of days as bonded labourers and finally chopping their palms from the wrists. While denying relief to the accused-appellants, the Division Bench of Justices Bibhu Prasad Routray and Chittaranjan Dash held:
“In the present, we are in seisin over a matter where the bonded labourers are encountered with an absolute barbaric act in the hands of so called labour contractor who not only fooled the labourers and fraudulently took away the money owed to them but also subjected them to the most monstrous act, before which even death would appear as an alluring option.”
Case Title: Hadi Dhangada Majhi @ Challan v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 106
The Orissa High Court altered conviction of a tribal man, accused of killing a man by shooting arrow shots, from murder to one for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. While giving partial relief to the accused-appellant, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held,
“In fact, there is no material on record that there was any kind of previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased and further, it appears that on the fateful day, there was a sudden quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and when the deceased challenged the appellant as to why he was quarrelling with him, the appellant shot an arrow at the deceased. It is not unusual for a tribal man to lose his temper even on trivial issues.”
Case Title: Partha Sarathi Das v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 107
The Orissa High Court ordered the State Government to organize training programmes for all the Notaries on a regular basis, either through physical or virtual mode to apprise them of their statutory duties and functions, also what they can do and what they must avoid doing. While taking judicial notice of extra-legal practices adopted by Notaries, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed,
“There are a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court as well as other High Courts from which it is palpably discernible that most of the notaries are not aware of their duties and functional limits.”
Case Title: Anji @ Ranjit Naik v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 108
The Orissa High Court altered the murder conviction of a labourer, accused of killing a person by thrashing a laterite stone on his head, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. While giving partial relief to the accused-appellant, the Division Bench of Justice Debabrata Dash and Justice Ananda Chandra Behera observed,
“The parties hail from the rural background and earned their livelihood by working as labourers. The judicial notice of the fact can be taken that was temper run high amongst such persons who were working as labourer hailing from the villages run high and for the silly reasons, they often behave and respond unexpectedly and aggressively.”
Case Title: Debendra Singh v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 109
The Orissa High Court confirmed the term of life imprisonment imposed upon a man for taking multiple nude photos of his niece, subsequently killing her and burning her face to conceal identity. Denying any relief to the accused-appellant for the ghastly crime, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed,
“Who can forget the beautiful lines from Hindi song, 'Chanda Mama Se Pyara Mera Mama...Meri Ankhon Ka Tara Mera Mama.' The appellant lacked the qualities of an uncle, made pious relationship ugly, spoiled the life of the deceased niece, tortured her and ultimately committed her gruesome murder.”
Case Title: Sri Trailokyanath Swain v. Pabitra @ Pabitra Mohan Upadhaya & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 110
The Orissa High Court clarified that a candidate should not be having more than two children alive on the date of filing the nomination for the post of 'Sarpanch' under the Odisha Grama Panchayat Act, 1964. Referring to Section 25(1)(v) of the Act, the Single Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray observed,
“From bare reading of the aforesaid clause, it is clear that the person contesting for the Office of Sarpanch should not have more than two children on the date of filing of nomination.”
Case Title: Leven Kerketta v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 111
The Orissa High Court clarified that it is not mandatory to examine the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, if the genuineness of his report is not disputed by the accused. It further held that once the accused admits the report to be genuine, it can be read as substantive evidence. While elucidating the mandate of the provision under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held,
“In view of section 58 of the Evidence Act and section 294 of Cr.P.C., once the genuineness of a document filed by the prosecution or the accused is not disputed by the other side, such document may be read as substantive evidence.”
Case Title: Trupti Mayee Patra v. Registrar, Examination, Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 112
The Orissa High Court held that a person must have practiced as an Advocate continuously for seven years 'immediately' before submitting application for direct recruitment in the cadre of District Judge from the Bar. The Division Bench of Justice Debabrata Dash and Justice Gourishankar Satapathy clarified that mere seven year (or more) experience as an Advocate at a point of time in the past would not make a person eligible unless he/she has been in practice immediately before sitting for such recruitment process.
Case Title: Nihar Ranjan Choudhury v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 113
The High Court opined that denial of promotion and other statutory rights and service benefits, merely because of long pendency of criminal trial, amounts to 'double jeopardy' and violates constitutional rights of the delinquent employee. While directing the authorities to give promotion to the petitioner, making it subject to result of the criminal case pending against him, the Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held:
“Unexplained prolongation of criminal trial violates the constitutional rights of an accused and denial of statutory or any other rights, for that matter, for a delinquent officer/government servant impending such delayed trial is indeed a case of double jeopardy.”
Case Title: Bhanu Charan Pradhan v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 114
The Orissa High Court held that a request for a sum of money by the husband to his in-laws for arranging a job for himself, which he assured to repay, will not amount to demand of 'dowry' as per Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Single Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo was hearing an appeal filed a person accused of committing murder of his wife in connection with demand of dowry and accordingly, he was charged under Sections 302/498A/304B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhubaneswar v. Sekhar Kumar Mohapatra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 115
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Dr. B.R. Sarangi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held that the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissing the department's appeal on the ground of the low tax effect is appealable before the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961; however, an appeal against the ITAT order dismissing vevenue's recall application does not lie before the High Court.
Case Title: Dr. Hemangini Meher v. Sangita Naik & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 116
The Orissa High Court held that trial Courts must be careful and should balance the mandate of law (requiring personal attendance of an accused) and requirements of the general public while pestering on the personal attendance of a public servant, particularly a doctor, whose presence is very much necessary in the hospital. While dispensing with the personal attendance of lady Gynaecologist before the trial Court, the Single Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo held,
“The Presiding Officer of the Court has a bounden duty to balance the mandate of the law and requirements of general public and then decide the fate of a petition filed under section 205 of the Cr.P.C. by an accused who also happens to be a public servant, more particularly, the Government servants who are enjoined with a duty to safeguard the lives and health of people.”
Case Title: Bibhuti Charan Mohanty v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 117
The Orissa High Court ordered the Puri Municipal Corporation to pay rupees ten lakhs compensation to the father of a minor boy who was attacked and mauled to death by four street/stray dogs in 2016. While fixing the responsibility of the Municipal Corporation, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Dr. BR Sarangi and Justice MS Raman held:
“Therefore, the negligence caused by the Municipal Authorities in due discharge of their statutory responsibilities cannot be absolved its liability to pay compensation contending that there is no provision under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 to pay compensation. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, the State and its instrumentalities are liable to pay compensation.”
Case Title: Prasanta Kumar Moharana v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 118
The Orissa High Court reiterated that the investigating agencies are duty bound to send 'viscera sample' for chemical examination in all suspected cases of murder due to 'poisoning' and must place the viscera report before the trial Court after obtaining the same from Forensic Laboratory. While terming the omission on the part of police to obtain viscera report a 'misconduct', the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed:
“Therefore, in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, omission on the part of the investigating agency in sending the viscera for examination and collecting the viscera report after the same is prepared by the Forensic Science Laboratory tantamounts to dereliction in obeying the order of the Hon'ble Highest Court, which is nothing less than a misconduct.”
Case Title: Susanta Kumar Samantaray & Anr. v. State of Odisha (Vig.)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 119
The Orissa High Court came down heavily on a Special Vigilance Judge for denying bail to two persons accused in a corruption case and sending them to police remand despite a previous order by the High Court granting them anticipatory bail. Making adverse remarks against the manner in which the trial Judge summoned and remanded the accused into custody, the Single Bench of Justice V. Narasingh observed:
“It is disconcerting to note that while passing the impugned order, the learned Trial Court went on to re-examine the allegations on merit and thereby virtually sat in appeal over the order passed by this Court and in the process rendered the order of this Court passed in ABLAPL nugatory.”
Case Title: Durga Prasad Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 120
A Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash clarified that the period of special parole availed by prisoners due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be counted as a period of imprisonment and thus, while counting the period of imprisonment undergone by a convict, the special parole period has to be excluded.
