Skip to content


State Vs. Jagannath Swain - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1971CriLJ572
AppellantState
RespondentJagannath Swain
Cases ReferredAbdul Karim Khan v. State of M. P. But
Excerpt:
.....that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the orissa state financial corporation. agreement between the orissa state financial corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the contract act, 1872 read with the provisions in the act, 1951 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..........passed 'by the b. d.o. magistrate, first class, sadar, cuttack, granting anticipatory bail to the opposite party in g. r. case no. 1313/1699 t/67 of 1967. the state of orissa has filed this revision application on the allegation that there was no formal warrant of arrest issued against the opposite party. as such by merely appearing before the learned magistrate the opposite party could not obtain an order for anticipatory bail.2. mr. rahenoma, appearing for the opposite party, contends that this application has become anfractuous inasmuch as the case in question has now been woodlouse. mr. ramdas, appearing for the state, however, wants me to decide the question as to whether anticipatory bail can be granted in law. there was no consensus of judicial opinion on this point. majority of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This Revision Application directed against the order dated 8.867 passed 'by the B. D.O. Magistrate, First Class, Sadar, Cuttack, granting anticipatory bail to the opposite party in G. R. Case No. 1313/1699 T/67 of 1967. The State of Orissa has filed this revision application on the allegation that there was no formal warrant of arrest issued against the opposite party. As such by merely appearing before the learned Magistrate the opposite party could not obtain an order for anticipatory bail.

2. Mr. Rahenoma, appearing for the opposite party, contends that this application has become anfractuous inasmuch as the case in question has now been woodlouse. Mr. Ramdas, appearing for the State, however, wants me to decide the question as to whether anticipatory bail can be granted in law. There was no consensus of judicial opinion on this point. Majority of the High Courts, however, had supported the view that there Wa3 no provision for any anticipatory bail. Reference may be made to A.I.R. 1950 E P 53 (FB), (Amir Chand v. Crown A.I.R. 1954 Madh B 113 (FB), State v. Dallu Punia , Juhar Mal v. State : AIR1955Cal141 , Amjad v. State : AIR1959AP639 , Public Prosecutor v. Manikya Rao : AIR1963MP276 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narayan Prasad A.I.R. 1966 Mys 71, State of Mysore v. Baswanth Rao and : AIR1967Ker189 , Pulinthanam v. :State.

Some deoisions have also taken a contrary view, such as A.I.R. 1952 Madh B 161, State v. Mangilal and : AIR1960MP54 , Abdul Karim Khan v. State of M. P. But the point has reoently been decided by the Supreme court and their Lordships have taken the view that there is no provision for any anticipatory bail within the home work of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my view of the opinion of the majority of the High Courts as approved by the Supreme Court correctly represents the law. :This revision is disposed of accordingly.


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