Skip to content


State of Orissa Vs. Nazrul Ali Sekh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1985CriLJ1311
AppellantState of Orissa
RespondentNazrul Ali Sekh and ors.
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. - if this test is satisfied, it must receive sufficient corroboration from reliable sources......he finds that the view recorded by the trial court in this regard cannot be assailed. the learned counsel for the respondent 3 has submitted that there is no case against this respondent. by order dt nov. 7,1983 passed by this court, the appeal against the respondent 3 has been split up to be heard separately as the other two respondents could not be apprehended by then, but as there is no evidence whatsoever supporting the evidence of the approver, the learned additional standing counsel has submitted that the appeal may also be disposed of as against them and in our view, it would be reasonable and proper to do so.2. having accepted pardon for his immunity, the approver must prove his worthiness for his credibility. in order to be acted upon, the evidence of an approver must.....
Judgment:

B.K. Behera, J.

1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, finding them to be not guilty of the charges under Section 302 read with Sections 34, 328 and 379 of the Penal Code. The case against the respondents and Sk. Satar Alli (P.W.1), who turned approver, was that on the 2nd day of June, 1976, they committed murder in furtherance of their common intention by administering poison to Atulya Dhan Mishra while he was travelling in the Howrah-Hyderabad Express Train in between Jaleswar and Balasore Railway Stations in order to commit theft and committed theft of bundles of readymade garments and other articles from his possession. - To bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined twenty witnesses. The learned trial Judge considered the evidence of the approver and found that he had made a true disclosure about the commission of the crimes, but his evidence had not received corroboration regarding the complicity of the respondents. The learned Additional Standing counsel has fairly submitted that having perused the evidence, he finds that the view recorded by the trial court in this regard cannot be assailed. The learned Counsel for the respondent 3 has submitted that there is no case against this respondent. By order dt Nov. 7,1983 passed by this Court, the appeal against the respondent 3 has been split up to be heard separately as the other two respondents could not be apprehended by then, but as there is no evidence whatsoever supporting the evidence of the approver, the learned Additional Standing Counsel has submitted that the appeal may also be disposed of as against them and in our view, it would be reasonable and proper to do so.

2. Having accepted pardon for his immunity, the approver must prove his worthiness for his credibility. In order to be acted upon, the evidence of an approver must fulfil a double test. His evidence must show that he is a witness of truth. If this test is satisfied, it must receive sufficient corroboration from reliable sources. The evidence of an approver is to be corroborated in material particulars and qua each accused. In the instant case, the approver's evidence had received no corroboration. The finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is justified and no interference is called for.

3. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The respondent 3 Sultan Ali Sekh, who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith. No further steps need be taken as against the other two respondents as the entire appeal has been disposed of.

D.P. Mohapatra, J.

4. I agree.


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