Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.18 seconds)
Om Prakash Santuka vs Champalal Sethia And Anr. on 27 September, 1985 cites

Jadumani Biswal vs Narayan Chandra Biswal (Deceased By ... on 21 October, 1982

In appeal, subsequent facts after the order of acqoittal as revealed from the records were considered in 30(1970) C L T 271 (Jadumani Das v. Govind Biswal), 1975 C. L. R. (Cr,) 485 (Nora Dei v. Dama Naik and Ors.) and 1984 (1) O. L. R. 69 (supra) to determine the correctness of the order of acquittal. There are two decisions of this Court in which petitions for adjournment were fined in wrong Court.
Orissa High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Shyamsundar Sahu vs Saroj Kumar Ghose on 12 January, 1968

149 (Shyamsundar Sahu v, Saroj Kumar Ghose) and 53 (1982) C. L. T. 71 (supra). Hasty or arbitrary action would be antithesis of reasonableness. Absence of reason in the order winks at improper exercise of power. In the absence of specific reasons in the order, in some cases subsequent conduct of the complainant has been taken into consideration by the High Court to find out whether the trial Court exercised the descretion properly. Conduct anterior and subsequent and on the date fixed for hearing when the order of acquittal was passed, real necessity for the presence of the complainant for progress of the trial are some of the considerations which weighed with this Court in the past in the facts and circumstances of each case to interfere with the orders of acquittal. The duty of the trial Court in the absence of a complainant has been expressed in ILR 1968 Cutt.
Orissa High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State vs Jagatram Sahu And Anr. on 27 June, 1972

In respect of the cases classified in (a) to (e) this Court has held that the presence of the complainant was not necessary. See 38(1972) C. L. T. 840 (State v. Jagatram Sahn and Anr.), 24(1958) C. L. T. 389 (Narendranath Mohanty v. Anirudhanath Mohanty), 41(1975) C. L. T. 1155 (Dwijendranath Dutta v. Sirla Jena and 4 Ors.), 26 (1960) CLT 602 (Khagendranath Naik v. Nila Bhol and 2 Ors.) and 1972 (1) C. W. R. 261 (Satrughna Padhan v. Chlintamani Tiwari and Ors.). These cases may not be directly applicable to the present situation.
Orissa High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Natha Naik And Ors. vs Padmalochan Naik And Ors. on 15 March, 1978

6. The power under Section 256, Cr. P. C., to acquit the accused can be exercised only when the complainant is absent on the date fixed for appearance of the accused or for hearing. Order of acquittal on a date which was neither for appearance of the accused nor for hearing, being without jurisdiction is a nullity and the trying Magistrate can recall the said order, [See ILR 1962 Cutt. 547 (Brundaban Bastia v. Birabar Bastia), 33 (1967) C. L. T. 1061 (Judhistir @ Jujesti Sahu and seven Ors. v. Padmalochan Sahu) and 30 (1970) C. L. T. 529 (Lakhiram Pansari v. Narasingh Misra)] Even on a date fixed for appearance of the accused or for hearing, where a complaint has been filed in official capacity, the acquittal on account of the absence of the complainant is not to be given undue importance.
Orissa High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Chandra Pati vs Badi Gigira And Ors. on 28 September, 1983

See 1984 (I) OLR 69 (Chandra Pati v. Badi Gigiria and Ors.), 53(1982) C. L. T. 71 (Nityananda Samal v. Nara Prasad @ Narottam Singh) and Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1980 decided on 27-1-1983 (Sankar Sethi v. Deva Prasad Mohapatra and Ors.) wider the discretion, the greater is the responsibility of exercising the same and in all such cases the crying Magistrate has a duty to exercise the discretion judiciously. Care and caution gives rise to inference of reasonableness of the Magistrate and his exercise of the power judiciously. Each case has to be examined in its own context to determine if the Magistrate has exercised the discretion properly. See I. L. R. 1968 Cutt.
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next