Skip to content


Dhadi Charan Rout and ors. Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1985CriLJ1435
AppellantDhadi Charan Rout and ors.
RespondentState of Orissa
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. .....of the first class, the petitioners made an application in revision which was heard by the learned additional sessions judge, cuttack. instead of deciding the revision on merits, the learned additional sessions judge remanded the matter to the trial court by affording an opportunity to the state as the complainant to adduce further documentary evidence which had not been adduced by it at the trial. as has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners and has fairly been submitted by the learned additional standing counsel, the learned additional sessions judge went legally wrong in making the order of remand only for the purpose of filling up some lacunae which might have been left by the prosecution. in my view, the impugned order passed by the learned additional.....
Judgment:
ORDER

B.K. Behera, J.

1. The petitioners stood convicted under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code by the trial Court and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. As the impugned order of conviction and sentences had been passed by a Magistrate of the first class, the petitioners made an application in revision which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. Instead of deciding the revision on merits, the learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded the matter to the trial Court by affording an opportunity to the State as the complainant to adduce further documentary evidence which had not been adduced by it at the trial. As has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and has fairly been submitted by the learned Additional Standing Counsel, the learned Additional Sessions Judge went legally wrong in making the order of remand only for the purpose of filling up some lacunae which might have been left by the prosecution. In my view, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is to be set aside with a direction that the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall dispose of the revision in accordance with law and I so direct.

2. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed.


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