Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, J.
Narayan Nayak & others - Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha (Vig.) - Respondent
CRLA Nos. 376, 389, 375 of 2017
Decided On : 18-08-2017
2. ODISHA CRIMINAL COURT WITNESSES (PAYMENT OF EXPENSES) RULES, 2012 - Rule 5 (1) - For the purpose of computing the expenses, a Criminal Court shall pay such expenses which shall ordinarily be a day’s allowance which may be paid to the persons coming under ‘B’ - Daily allowance and travelling allowance for a retired Government servant witness should be at par with the entitlement that he would have received had he been in the Government service as per 2012 Rules - Duty of the Court to take into account such aspects while deciding the reasonable expenses for such witness - The 2012 Rules also prescribes diet allowance for the witnesses - Paramount duty of the Presiding Officer of a Court as well as the Judge-in-charge (Accounts) of the Station to ensure that a retired Government servant witness or any other witness is not harassed for getting his legitimate dues towards the expenses which should not only be reasonable but should be paid promptly.
3. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE - Punctuality is the hallmark of justice - Whosoever is connected with the justice delivery system should be punctual so that the valuable time of the Court is not wasted even for a moment - Criminal Court is not a play ground and criminal justice system is not a plaything - Nobody can be permitted in playing tricks with the Court proceeding and take everything for granted merely because the Court was sympathetic to him on some previous occasions - Once the Court is convinced that by placing misplaced sympathies and showing benevolence, things are moving in a wrong direction, it will be strict in bringing back the things in right direction - Further stated.
A party is disentitled to relief in a Court of law on account of his blameworthy conduct or laches as such relief cannot be granted arbitrarily but in exercise of sound judicial discretion. The profession of lawyers is an essential and integral part of the sound judicial system and lawyers are described as priests in the temple of justice. They assist the Court in dispensing justice and it would be well nigh impossible for the Court to administer justice without their help. They are really and truly officers of the Court in which they daily sit and practice. The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. The legal profession is different from other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of a civilised society. Both as a leading member of the intelligentsia of the society and as a responsible citizen, a lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others in their professional lives. The Court must ensure that there is no incentive for wrong doer in the temple of Justice.
4. ODISHA SPECIAL COURTS ACT, 2006 - Sec. 15 - Criminal Procedure Code - Sec. 243 - Applicability of Sub-section (3) of Sec. 243, Cr.P.C. in a confiscation proceeding cannot be questioned - As per Sec. 15 of 2006 Act the Authorised Officer has the duty not only to consider the explanation, if any, submitted as per the show cause notice issued u/s. 14 and the materials available before it but also give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person affected or to such other person if the person affected holds any money or property specified in the notice through such other person - Authorised Officer has every right to refuse the issuance of process as contemplated u/s.243 (2), Cr.P.C., if it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Sahoo, J.
The appellants Narayan Nayak, Kumudini Nayak, Padmanav Nayak and Santosh Kumar Nayak in CRLA No. 376 of 2017 have challenged the impugned order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar in Confiscation Case No.05 of 2011 in rejecting their petition to reassess the cost of summoning the investigating officer (P.W.1) and directing them to deposit the cost for availing further cross-examination of P.W.1.
2. The appellants in CRLA No. 389 of 2017 have challenged the impugned order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the same Court in the same proceeding in discharging the investigating officer (P.W.1) and closing the evidence from the side of the State-Applicant.
3. The appellants in CRLA No. 375 of 2017 have challenged the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 also passed by the same Court in the same proceeding in closing the evidence from the side of the appellants and posting the case for argument.
4. Since the appellants in all the three criminal appeals are same and they have challenged different orders passed by the same Court in the same proceeding, with the consent of the respective parties, the appeals were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment.
5. The appellant no.1 Narayan Nayak has been charge sheeted under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter “P.C. Act”) in connection with Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.10 of 1999 on the accusation of possessing disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.14,68,440.81 paisa and in connection with that case, the confiscation proceeding has been initiated against him, his wife Kumudini Nayak and their two sons Padmanav Nayak and Santosh Kumar Nayak before the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar.
6. It appears that the appellant no.1 Narayan Nayak earlier approached this Court in CRLA No. 04 of 2017 in challenging the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned Authorized Officer in rejecting the petition filed by the appellants seeking adjournment of the case for further cross-examination of P.W.1 Sadasiva Rath who was the D.S.P., Vigilance Cell, Orissa, Cuttack and took up investigation as per the direction of the S.P., Vigilance, Cuttack. This Court vide order dated 11.01.2017 directed the appellant no.1 to remain present before the learned Authorized Officer on 18.01.2017 and the Vigilance Department was also directed to ensure the presence of the concerned I.O. on that day for his further cross-examination and it was further ordered that if the appellant no.1 does not avail the opportunity, no further adjournment shall be granted to him in any circumstances. On 18.01.2017 P.W.1 appeared before the learned Authorized Officer but as the local bar members were on strike, there was no cross-examination and the learned Authorized Officer recorded the cross-examination of the witness as ‘nil’ and accordingly, discharged him and posted the case for evidence from the side of the appellants.
7. The appellant no.1 challenged the aforesaid order dated 18.01.2017 before this Court in CRLA No.50 of 2017. This Court vide order dated 17.03.2017 has been pleased to observe that the appellant no.1 is deliberately delaying the matter, however, directed the prosecution to produce P.W.1 on 28.03.2017 before the learned Authorized Officer for further cross-examination on recall and further directed that the cost for recalling of the witness as would be directed by the learned Authorized Officer shall be paid by 22nd March 2017. On 28.03.2017 P.W.1 appeared before the learned Authorized Officer and he was cross-examined at length and his evidence was closed. On 30.03.2017 a recall petition was filed by the appellants to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination and to defer the evidence of the appellants till the closure of further cross-examination of P.W.1. The learned Authorized Officer rejected the petition on the very day.
8. The appellants challenged the af
SupremeToday
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
