Sanjay Garia vs State Of Odisha & Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 9833 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             CRLREV NO.411 OF 2023
            Sanjay Garia                           ....          Petitioner
                                                   Mr.A.K.Dash, Advocate
                                        -versus-
            State of Odisha & Another              ....    Opposite Parties
                                                    Mr.D.K.Mishra, AGA.
                      CORAM:
                     MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
                                      ORDER

22.08.2023 Order No. I.A. No.569 of 2023

01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.

2. This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay of 261 days in filing the Revision.

3. Heard.

4. Considering the submissions made and on going through the averment taken in the petition, the prayer for condonation of delay of 261 days in filing the Appeal is allowed.

5. The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

(D. Dash) Judge.

                                    ORDER
                                   22.08.2023
Order No.                     CRLREV NO.411 OF 2023
   02.       1.     The Petitioner, by filing this Revision has called in

question the legality and propriety of an order dated

// 2 //

24.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchinda in S.T case No.11/24 of 2018.

By the said order, the Trial Court has framed the charge against the Petitioner (accused) and four others for commission of offence under section 341/294/323/379/307/ 427/34 of the IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner inviting the attention of the Court to FIR and the Medical Examination Reports contended that there being no material to presume that the Petitioner (accused) has committed the offence under section 307 of the IPC, the Trial Court has gone wrong in framing the charge for the said offence which has unnecessarily put the gravity to the Trial and for that when the case is actually triable by the Magistrate First Class, is now being tried in the Court of Sessions and thereby in the long run, the same may cause prejudice to the Petitioner as he may lose one forum in the place where the Trial is going on to challenge the final judgment of the Trial Court in the event, the same runs against him.

3. Learned counsel for the State inviting the attention of this Court, first to the fact that the Petitioner (accused) before the Trial Court has not moved for his discharge by filing appropriate application, contends that now even after the framing of the charge by the order which is impugned in this Revision, three witnesses including the Informant (P.W.1) have already been examined and therefore, at this stage of the Trial, the entertainment of the Revision to judge the legality

// 3 //

and propriety of the order of framing of charge would not be proper.

4. Keeping in view the submissions made, the order sheet of the Trial Court being perused, it is seen that the Trial having commenced on 24.08.2022 by framing of the charge, in course of the trial, three witnesses have already been examined and this Petitioner (accused) has cooperated in the Trial by cross-examining those witness.

5. In the above state of affair, this Court at this stage instead of admitting the Revision in sitting over to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order, the Revision stands disposed of with the observation that all the contentions which have been raised here in this Revision if are so raised by the Petitioner (accused), those will be considered in their proper perspective while concluding the trial in accordance with law.

(D. Dash) Judge.

Gitanjali

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 28-Aug-2023 10:44:58