B.K.BEHERA
KHIROD ALIAS KHIRODRA DEBATA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA – Respondent
B. K. BEHERA, J.
( 1 ) ACCUSED of offences punishable under Sections 402 and 477 A of the Indian Penal Code and aggrieved by the orders dated May 5, 1982, passed in three cases against hirn by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh, framing charges in respect of the two offences under Section 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the petitioner has corne up to this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 and under Section 482 of the Code, in the three Revisions which, with the consent of the parties, have been heard together and will be governed by this common order, after deterrnining the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that without proper application of rnind and perusing the materials and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, the irnpugned orders have been passed mechanically without just and reasonable grounds. Mr. Nayak, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has raised the question of maintainability of the Revisions on the grounds that an order framing a charge against an accused person is an interlocutory order and, therefore, as provided in Section 397 (
REFERRED TO : Arhar Nath v. State of Haryana
Lalit Mohan Mandal v. Benoveudra Nath Chatterjee
Mohaulal Maganlal Thakur v. State of Gujarat
Tarapore and Co., Madras, v. yb. Tractors Exports, Moscow
Satyadhavan Ghosal v. Smt. Deorajin Debi
R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra
Abdul Rahaman v. Cassim and Sons
State of UP. v. Col. Sujan Singh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.