Skip to content


Brajabandhu Biswal and anr. Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision No. 576 of 1981
Judge
Reported in56(1983)CLT163; 1984(I)OLR9
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 401(4), 446 and 449
AppellantBrajabandhu Biswal and anr.
RespondentThe State
Appellant AdvocateR. Mohanty and Sanjit Mohanty
Respondent AdvocateD.P. Sahu, Standing Counsel
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the..........446 of the code of criminal procedure (for short, the 'code'), by the learned additional sessions judge, puri, against the petitioners who were the two sureties for the appellant in a criminal appeal which was dismissed. the petitioners did not produce the appellant, as directed by the court. under section 449 of the code, any order passed under section 446 of the code is appealable. section 401(4) of the code provides that where under this code, an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. the revision, therefore, is not maintainable in law. it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they will prefer an appeal against the impugned order.2. the.....
Judgment:

B.K. Behera, J.

1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. This application in revision has been made against an order passed under section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the 'Code'), by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, against the petitioners who were the two sureties for the appellant in a criminal appeal which was dismissed. The Petitioners did not produce the appellant, as directed by the Court. Under section 449 of the Code, any order passed under section 446 of the Code is appealable. Section 401(4) of the Code provides that where under this Code, an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. The revision, therefore, is not maintainable in law. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they will prefer an appeal against the impugned order.

2. The revision fails and is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //