Skip to content


Mathew Omalt and anr. Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCri. Misc. Case No. 11 of 1984
Judge
Reported in57(1984)CLT305; 1984(I)OLR303
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 190 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 307
AppellantMathew Omalt and anr.
RespondentState of Orissa
Appellant AdvocateL. Mohapatra, J.R. Behera and A.K. Misra
Respondent AdvocateStanding Council
Excerpt:
.....and its rules. on the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. thus, by virtue of the provision in section 56 read with section 64 (2) of the act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by orissa state financial corporation. by doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the orissa state financial corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. in other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the orissa state financial corporation towards..........he submits that in order to find that an offence under section 307 i. p. c. was committed, the nature of the offence, the size of the injury, the motive of the accused and his attendant conduct are relevant factors. though in this case a knife was used and a blow was given on the head, having regard to the nature of the injury caused and the genesis of the occurrence, it is difficult to . hold that the intention of the petitioners was to attempt to cause death. i have gone through the f. i. r. and the statements of witnesses. the occurrence arose out of a quarrel and the blow was given on the spot. having regard to the nature of the injury, it is indisputable that the blow was not a severe one, the dimension of the injury being 5 c. m. 1/2 c. m. 1/2 cm. i am, therefore, of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

R.C. Patnaik, J.

1. With consent of the counsel for both sides the revision is heard. Admit.

2. This revision is directed against an order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 342/323/506/307|34 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Behera, the learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently urges that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Magistrate fell into an error in taking cognizance of an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that in order to find that an offence under Section 307 I. P. C. was committed, the nature of the offence, the size of the injury, the motive of the accused and his attendant conduct are relevant factors. Though in this case a knife was used and a blow was given on the head, having regard to the nature of the injury caused and the genesis of the occurrence, it is difficult to . hold that the intention of the petitioners was to attempt to cause death. I have gone through the F. I. R. and the statements of witnesses. The occurrence arose out of a quarrel and the blow was given on the spot. Having regard to the nature of the injury, it is indisputable that the blow was not a severe one, the dimension of the injury being 5 c. m. 1/2 c. m. 1/2 cm. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no prima facie case under Section 307 I. P. C. was made out against the petitioners. I, therefore, quash the order taking Cognizance under Section 307 I. P. C. Instead I direct the Magistrate to take cognizance of offence under Section 324/34 I. P. C. and proceed with the case in accordance with law.

3. The Criminal Miscellaneous case is accordingly disposed of.


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