Skip to content


Daitari Pradhan Alias Ashok Das Alias Muna Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Case No. 498 of 1985 arising out of Criminal Revision No. 308 of 1985
Judge
Reported in60(1985)CLT295; 1985(II)OLR334
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395
AppellantDaitari Pradhan Alias Ashok Das Alias Muna
RespondentState
Appellant AdvocateB.C. Ray and D. Nayak
Respondent AdvocateM.R. Mohanty, Addl. S. C.
Excerpt:
- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. - 5000/- (rupees five thousand) with one surety for the like, amount to the satisfaction of the trial court......no doubt, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo a long term of imprisonment. but for the reasons to follow, i am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. 3. the co-convicts who have made applications in revision have been admitted to bail by this court in criminal revision nos. 280 and 342 of 1985. a number of convicted prisoners are in custody in a number of criminal appeals, jail criminal appeals, criminal revisions and jail criminal revisions pending in this court. it is not possible in every case to make an order for expeditious hearing by fixing a particular date. this revision is not likely to be heard and disposed of soon. 4. for the aforesaid reasons, i would admit the petitioner to bail. the petitioner is to be released on a bail of rs. 5000/- (rupees five thousand).....
Judgment:

B.K. Behera, J.

1. The revisionist who has been convicted of an offence of dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years has made this application for his release on bail.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. R. Mohanty, the learned Additional Standing Counsel. No doubt, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo a long term of imprisonment. But for the reasons to follow, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail.

3. The co-convicts who have made applications in revision have been admitted to bail by this Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 280 and 342 of 1985. A number of convicted prisoners are in custody in a number of Criminal Appeals, Jail Criminal Appeals, Criminal Revisions and Jail Criminal Revisions pending in this Court. It is not possible in every case to make an order for expeditious hearing by fixing a particular date. This revision is not likely to be heard and disposed of soon.

4. For the aforesaid reasons, I would admit the petitioner to bail. The petitioner is to be released on a bail of Rs. 5000/- (rupees five thousand) with one surety for the like, amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.


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