Skip to content

Guljar HussaIn Vs. Krishna Loila and Four ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Reference No. 1 of 1983
Reported in1984(I)OLR58
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 395(2) and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 202(2), 307, 324 and 448
AppellantGuljar Hussain
RespondentKrishna Loila and Four ors.
Cases ReferredKhetrabasi and Ors. v. Kahal Madhab and Ors.
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period 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..........and another, which has been followed by this court in criminal revision no. 261 of 1980, decided on august 4, 1983 e. khetra alias khetrabasi and ors. v. kahal madhab and ors., 1983 criminal law journal noc : 55 (1983) cuttack law times short note 37, referred to by the learned sessions judge and i would call upon the learned chief judicial magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with law.

B.K. Behera, J.

1. For the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, I would accept the reference made under section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') and in exercise of the inherent jurisdict ion of this Court under section 482 of the Code, quash the order taking cognisance in the case instituted on a complaint in respect of offences punishable under sections 307, 324 and 448 read with sections 34 of the Indian Penal Code, exclusively triable by the Court of Session, without examining all the witnesses for the complainant as required under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 202 of the Code and the order of commitment based thereon, on the principle laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gokulananda Mohanty and Ors. v. Muralidhar Mallik 47 (1979) Cuttack Law Times 244 and by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1980 Criminal Law Journal 593 Ramacbander Rao and others vs. Boina Ramchander and another, which has been followed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 261 of 1980, decided on August 4, 1983 E. Khetra alias Khetrabasi and Ors. v. Kahal Madhab and Ors., 1983 Criminal Law Journal NOC : 55 (1983) Cuttack Law Times Short Note 37, referred to by the learned Sessions Judge and I would call upon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with law.

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