SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Ori) 30

G.B.PATTANAIK
RAGHUNATH MOHAPATRA – Appellant
Versus
SATYABADI PANDA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.C.RATH, SARAT KUMAR DAS

G. B. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment since common facts are involved. The complainant in IOC 32/82 is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 55/84 assailing the order of the learned Magistrate cased 26-9-1983 by which order the Magistrate came to the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction to take cognisance under Section 467, I. P. C, in view of the bar provided under section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused persons and the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 577/83 challenging the order of the Magistrate dated 26-9-1983 holding the trial of the case against them for the offence under Section 406, I. P. C. to proceed.

( 2 ) THE short facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint petition alleging therein that the accused persons committed the offence under Section 406 as well as under Section 467, I. P. C. It was averred therein that the Aska Co-operative Central Bank had filed a dispute case being dispute Case No. 732/78 against the father of the complainant as well as the present accused persons and also against the Service Co-operative Society for realisation







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top