Skip to content


Raghunath Pattnaik Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision No. 139 of 1984
Judge
Reported in1985(II)OLR396
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 332
AppellantRaghunath Pattnaik
RespondentState of Orissa
Appellant AdvocateR.N. Mohanty, P.C. Kar and D. Choudhury
Respondent AdvocateD.P. Sahoo, Standing Counsel
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredS. Mohan Rao v. Bhubaneswar Rath.
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. .....judgment, on the date of hearing, the advocate for the appellant-petitioner did nor appear and the learned appellate judge heard the learned public prosecutor and disposed of the appeal on merits. as has been laid down by the supreme court in the case of khalli and ors. v. state of uttar pradesh 1982 scc (cri.) 143, when an advocate engaged for the appellant in criminal matter does not appear, the courtshould engage an advocate amicus curiae and then proceed to dispose of the appeal. this principle has bean followed by this court in 1984 cri, l.j. 581:1984 (i) olr 103l: surendra mohapatra v. state and in 1985 cr. l.j. 228 : 1984 (i) olr 1083 : s. mohan rao v. bhubaneswar rath.3. while setting aside the impugned appellate judgment and order, i would remit the matter for fresh hearing by.....
Judgment:

B.K. Behera, J.

1. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and as agreed to by them, I would,for the reasons to follow, allow the application in revision setting aside the impugned judgment and order recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phulbani, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of conviction recorded-against him under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and direct re-hearing.

2. As would appear from the record of the appellate Court and the impugned appellate judgment, on the date of hearing, the Advocate for the appellant-petitioner did nor appear and the learned appellate Judge heard the learned Public Prosecutor and disposed of the appeal on merits. As has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Khalli and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1982 SCC (Cri.) 143, when an Advocate engaged for the appellant in criminal matter does not appear, the Courtshould engage an Advocate amicus curiae and then proceed to dispose of the appeal. This principle has bean followed by this Court in 1984 Cri, L.J. 581:1984 (I) OLR 103l: Surendra Mohapatra v. State and in 1985 Cr. L.J. 228 : 1984 (I) OLR 1083 : S. Mohan Rao v. Bhubaneswar Rath.

3. While setting aside the impugned appellate judgment and order, I would remit the matter for fresh hearing by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani. The parties are to appear before the Sessions Judge for appropriate directions on the 30th of this month. The learned Sessions Judge shall then fix a suitable date for hearing in the presence of the parties. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that appropriate steps will be taken by the petitioner to engage an Advocate on his behalf. If the petitioner does not engage an Advocate, the learned Sessions Judge shall engage an Advocate amicus curiae, hear both sides and then dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within a period of three months hence. The record be sent down tomorrow positively.


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