Skip to content


Binod Sitha Vs. Suna Dei - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Misc. Case No. 160 of 1985
Judge
Reported in60(1985)CLT422; 1985(II)OLR591
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 397(2), 397(3) and 482
AppellantBinod Sitha
RespondentSuna Dei
Appellant AdvocateG. Panda, P.K. Nanda, P.K. Parida and A.R. Dash
Respondent AdvocateP.K. Dhal, D. Nayak, S.P. Dhal, R. Ray, T.K. Mohapatra and B. Puhan
DispositionCase dismissed
Excerpt:
.....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. - section 397(3) of the code of criminal procedure provides a bar for a second revision by the same person and this provision should not be allowed to be avoided by taking resort to section 482. while it is true that exercise of inherent jurisdiction as provided in section 482 is not controlled by the provisions made in sections 397(2) or 397(3) of the code of criminal procedure, it has been a..........for interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure by reducing the quantum of maintenance granted to the opposite party in a proceeding under section 125 of the code of criminal procedure, maintained by the court of revision, while dismissing the revision presented by the present petitioner, as this is purely a question of fact and the quantum has been fixed by the first court and the revisional court after consideration of the materials placed before them. section 397(3) of the code of criminal procedure provides a bar for a second revision by the same person and this provision should not be allowed to be avoided by taking resort to section 482. while it is true that exercise of inherent jurisdiction as provided.....
Judgment:

B.K. Behera, J.

1. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, I do not find any prima facie case for interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by reducing the quantum of maintenance granted to the opposite party in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, maintained by the Court of revision, while dismissing the revision presented by the present petitioner, as this is purely a question of fact and the quantum has been fixed by the first Court and the revisional Court after consideration of the materials placed before them. Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a bar for a second revision by the same person and this provision should not be allowed to be avoided by taking resort to Section 482. While it is true that exercise of inherent jurisdiction as provided in Section 482 is not controlled by the provisions made in Sections 397(2) or 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it has been a settled principle that inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases in the interest of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. In my view, it is not a fit case in which this Court should interfere with the quantum of maintenance in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

2. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is accordingly dismissed.


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