Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, J.
Ipsita Pratihari - Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa - Opp. party
CRLREV No. 886, 887 of 2016
Decided On : 23-03-2017
2. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Sec. 79 - After receiving a warrant from the Court, the concerned Police Officer has first to take it either to the Executive Magistrate or to the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station within local limits of whose jurisdiction he intends to execute the warrant and thereafter, he will get the authority to execute the warrant within that jurisdiction after getting the endorsement on the warrant - Even though Sub-Section (3) provides for an exception but it is the bounden duty of the concerned Police Officer going to execute the warrant to mention in the case diary the specific reasons for which he did not take the endorsement of either the Executive Magistrate or the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station on the warrant within whose local limits of the jurisdiction, he attempted for executing the warrant. (Para - 6)
3. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 -Sec. 82 - Court must have reason to believe that after the warrant was issued against the person, he has absconded or concealed himself somewhere so that warrant could not be executed for which he may direct for publishing a written proclamation, such belief must be based on concrete materials and in absence of such materials, the Court should not mechanically pass an order u/s. 82, Cr.P.C. directing publishing a written proclamation - Provisions under the Section are mandatory in nature and are to be construed strictly.
The processes of proclamation and attachment should not be issued whenever a warrant fails of its effect. If it is necessary, the officer sent to serve the warrant should be examined as to the measures adopted by him to serve it and if on his evidence, or in any other manner the Court is satisfied that the accused is evading justice, then and then only can the processes of proclamation and attachment be issued. The Magistrate must record the grounds which satisfied him that the accused was absconding and concealing him to evade justice. (Para - 6)
4. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Sec. 83 - Attachment of property of the absconding person, there must be material before the Court that after issuance of the proclamation, there was necessity for passing an order of attachment of the property either movable or immovable or both belonging to the proclaimed person and the reasons for passing an attachment order should be recorded in writing - Though the Court has power to issue an order of attachment of property at the time of issuance of proclamation but such order can be passed only when the Court is satisfied that the person is about to dispose of the whole or part of his property or to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court - Order of attachment of property should not be passed in haste and without proper application of mind - Procedure laid down under the Section has to be followed strictly. (Para - 7)
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Sahoo, J.
The petitioner Ipsita Pratihari has filed the criminal revision petition vide CRLREV No. 887 of 2016 to set aside the impugned order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri in G.R. Case No. 1561 of 2016 in which the prayer made by the Investigating Officer for issuance of proclamation under section 82 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner was allowed. Similarly the petitioner has filed another criminal revision petition vide CRLREV No. 886 of 2016 to set aside the impugned order dated 05.11.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri in allowing the prayer made by the Investigating Officer for attachment/freezing of the accounts and properties of the petitioner and also the consequential order dated 19.11.2016 of the Deputy Supdt. of Police, City, Puri in which he has locked, sealed and attached the property of the petitioner. The said case arises out of Singhadwar P.S. Case No. 46 of 2016 registered on 18.07.2016 under sections 143, 341, 353, 294, 506, 186, 188 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 30-A (4)(b) of Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955.
Since both the revision petitions arise out the same case and the petitioner is the same, with the consent of the parties, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report dated 18.07.2016 lodged by Shri Aravind Agrawal, IAS, District Magistrate and Collector, Puri-cum-Deputy Chief Administrator, Shree Jagannath Temple Administration before the Superintendent of Police, Puri is that Shri Jagannath Temple Management Committee had restricted entry of unauthorized persons/non-Sevayats/devotees and family members of the Sevayats on the Chariots of the Jews and in order to enforce the decision, adequate arrangements were made. On 17.07.2016 at about 9.00 p.m. on Niladri Bije, it was noticed that some of the Sevayats and few others forcefully took a lady on the Chariot of Lord Balabhadra in spite of restriction imposed. The Jagannath Temple Police on the Chariots who were assigned the duty to restrict the unauthorized entry failed to restrict the lady while climbing to the Chariot. When the informant noticed the same, he along with the Inspector in-charge of Lion’s Gate Police Station and few other female Police officers on duty restrained the lady verbally to climb over the other Chariots and at that moment, Sevayats Damodar Mahasuar, Bhimsen Palankadhari and Jayakrushna Mahasuar started abusing the informant and they were immediately joined by other Sevayats including the petitioner and all of them started abusing the informant in unparliamentary and filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences to kill him. They also tried to assault the informant as a result of which the informant was publicly embarrassed. It is further stated in the First Information Report that the inhuman and shameful behavior of the Sevayats severely shocked the informant and other senior officials and thereafter the Sevayats also dared to stop Pahandi of Lord Sudarshan after it was started. It is further stated that during the entire process, many other Sevayats started abusing the informant in filthy language and obstructed the carcade of Lord Sudarshan. Since the safety and security of the informant was jeopardized, Senior Police Officers rescued him from the spot and after a lot of persuasion, the Pahandi started and embarrassing situation faced by Jews could be avoided and normalcy restored.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, Puri was entrusted with the investigation of the case. On 19.07.2016 some of the accused persons were arrested and forwarded to Court. On 20.07.2016 and 21.07.2016 raids were conducted at different places of Puri to apprehend the absconding accused persons but in vain. On 22.07.2016 some more accused persons were arrested and forwarded to Court.
On 23.07.2016 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, Puri made a praye
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
