Orissa High Court
Sri Nanda Kishore Mishra vs Gopal Chandra Pattnaik on 11 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1631 of 2010
Sri Nanda Kishore Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
Gopal Chandra Pattnaik .... Opposite Party
Mr. B. Jalli, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 11.03.2022
04. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the
petitioner assailing order dated 24th October, 2008 i.e. Annexure-4
passed by the J.M.F.C., Daspalla in I.C.C. No.67 of 2001 and also
to set aside the judgment dated 04th May, 2010 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in Criminal Revision
No.19 of 2008 on the ground that it is not sustainable in law.
3. In fact, the petitioner filed a complaint i.e. I.C.C. No.67 of
2001 before the learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla wherein, he produced
certified copies of documents relating to a confiscation proceeding
which is said to have been initiated against him by the opposite
party, who was then working as Forest Ranger (Wild Life) on the
ground that they are relevant for proper adjudication of the matter
but then, the court rejected the same vide Annexure-4, which was
challenged in Criminal Revision No.19 of 2008 but the same
yielded no result as was held to be not maintainable in view of
Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. being an interlocutory order by referring to
// 2 //
a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sithuraman Vrs.
Rajamanickam reported in (2009) 430 OCR (SC) 97. Against the
revisional order under Annexure-6, the petitioner approached this
Court invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
set it aside by contending that both the courts below fell into error
in not directing acceptance of the documents which are very much
relevant to the case especially when the vehicle in question which is
owned by the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case and
subsequently, was made a subject of confiscation proceeding.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was
no ground to reject such a prayer to accept the certified copies of
the documents vis-à-vis confiscation proceeding even though the
request was made at the stage of argument. The learned counsel for
the opposite party submits that in fact there was no need or any
kind of necessity to exhibit such documents of confiscation
proceeding as there is already evidence on record in that respect
and therefore, rightly the learned J.M.F.C. rejected its acceptance
and passed the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4.
5. Considering the nature of allegations made and the fact
that the petitioner led evidence and subsequently produced
certified copies of public documents in relation to the confiscation
proceeding, the learned J.M.F.C. could have received it and ought
to have accepted which would not have in any way caused
prejudice to the opposite party. In fact, documents which may be
necessary or relevant for proper appreciation of the case could be
accepted at any stage by invoking jurisdiction under Section 311
Cr.P.C., which according to this Court, failed to be exercised by the
learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla.
// 3 //
6. The complaint is of the year 2001 and the impugned order
under Annexure-4 was passed in 2008 and since 2010, on account
of stay order passed by this Court, the proceeding in I.C.C. No.67
of 2001 has been kept in abeyance. In such view of the matter and
considering the arguments of learned counsel for respective parties,
the Court is of the considered view that the petitioner should be
allowed to utilise the certified copies of the documents as evidence
before the learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla which most unlikely to
prejudice the opposite party, who shall have ample opportunity to
defend during trial and accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed with a direction
that the petitioner shall exhibit the certified copies of the
documents in relation to the confiscation proceeding as evidence
before the learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla and the court below
thereafter to proceed and dispose of the case as per and in
accordance with law by providing opportunity of hearing to the
opposite party to challenge or lead any counter evidence in that
respect and then to ensure disposal of the complaint preferably
within six weeks thereafter and in any case not later than 30th April,
2022.
8. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
KC Bisoi
