High CourtsSingle Bench(1999) 01 OHC CK 0017

Nitu alias Sangram Keshari Baral and Others vs State of Orissa and Another

Orissa High Court · Decided on 8 January 1999 · Citation: (1999) CriLJ 1206

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.K. Tripathy, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 229 of 1995

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 375 words

P.K. Tripathy, J.—Petitioners have preferred this Criminal revision challenging illegality and propriety of the order dated 4-3-1995 in S.t. Case No. 273 of 1994 of the Court of Chief Judicial Mpgistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Cut-tack. It appears from the impugned order that on the basis of the FIR lodged by the informant, an investigation was taken up and thereafter charge sheet was filed against seven accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions as some of the offences alleged were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Assistant Sessions Judge received the case on transfer as per order of the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack. In his Court an application was filed by the informant praying to summon the other persons named, in the FIR on the ground that there exists a prima facie case against them. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge heard the parties and following the ratio in the case of Bira Kishore Mohapatra v. Sundar Bhoi Bati Mundia (1990) 70 CLT 72 allowed the petition and issued notice to the present petitioners to stand their trial in that Court.

2.

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, argued that no prima facie case exists against any of the petitioners and Without affording an opportunity of hearing to them, petition filed by the informant should not have been allowed. He further argued that he may'' be allowed opportunity to place his submission before the trial Court regarding absence of prima facie materials. Learned Additional Standing Counsel has no objection to that submission. But he further states that the matter should be disposed of expeditiously and on its own merit because it involves an old case of the year 1994. None appeared for Opposite Party No. 2 on the date of hearing.

3.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission, this revision is disposed of with the direction that in the event the petitioner shall file an application by 19-1-1999 in the trial Court setting forth the grounds regarding absence of prima facie case, learned Assistant Sessions Judge shall do well to hear and dispose of that petition in accordance with law within a period of 15 days thereafter. Opportunity of hearing be afforded to all the parties concerned, if they will participate.