Khelabanta Sahoo vs State Of Orissa
2023 Latest Caselaw 2587 Ori

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                   CRLMC No. 1765 of 2011

            Khelabanta Sahoo                            ....          Petitioner
                                                     Mr. J.K. Panda, Advocate
                                         -versus-

            State of Orissa                            ....    Opposite Party
                                                    Mr. Debakanta Mohanty
                                            Additional Government Advocate

                        CORAM:
                        THE CHIEF JUSTICE

                                         ORDER

Order No. 29.03.2023

09. 1. The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 24th May, 2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rourkela in G.R. Case No.1468 of 2000 which reads as under:

"Dtd. 24.5.11.

Accused persons are present and files hazira. The case is posted to today for judgment. On perusal of the case record, it is found that, the appointment of the accused persons and their duty during the period of audit, is required for just decision of the case. Therefore, it is necessary to summon the present M.D. of Nuagaon LAMP for his examination as a Court witness. Therefore, judgment is deferred. The prosecution case is re-opened. Issue summons to the M.D. of Nuagaon LAMP, with a direction to produce the documents relating to the appointment of the accused persons and entrustment of their duties during the period of audit, fixing the case to 3.6.2011 for hearing.

Accused persons are as before till then."

2. Relying on the Judgment of this Court in Bimal Krushna Tripathy v. State of Orissa (2005) 31 OCR-726, it is submitted that the impugned order was not preceded by any application moved by the prosecution

and there was no occasion for the Court to suo motu summon the present Petitioner only because the Court required to examine the documents pertaining to the appointment of the accused persons. The impugned order to the extent it summons the present Petitioner is hereby quashed.

3. The petition is allowed in the above terms.

4. The Superintendent of the concerned branch is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Subordinate Court forthwith.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

S. Behera