Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K.PATTANAIK
Amar Kumar Behera – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the criminal charges against the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the absence of a prima facie case. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on the petitioner’s responsibility. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. conclusion on quashing the criminal proceedings. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the proceeding and continuance thereof in connection with G.R. Case No.681 of 2015 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore, Koraput corresponding to Bariguma P.S. Case No.87 of 2015 on the grounds inter alia that no prima facie case is made out vis-à-vis breach of trust and misappropriation of Government money and hence, the criminal action should be terminated otherwise it would result in abuse of process of law.
3. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State opposite party.
5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that there is a joint responsibility of the petitioner and co-accused to account for the forest advance which was received by them and since in t
No prima facie case for breach of trust established against the petitioner as he lacked direct control over the misappropriated funds, leading to quashing of criminal proceedings.
The court established that serious allegations of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy justify proceeding to trial, and that prior sanction for prosecution is not required for a retired public ser....
The court held that allegations of misappropriation and abuse of power by a public servant warrant investigation, and an FIR should not be quashed if it discloses a prima facie case.
The prosecution must provide concrete evidence to prove allegations of criminal breach of trust; absence of critical documentation undermines a conviction under Section 409 IPC.
An error in the charge framed by the trial court under Section 212 of the CrPC will not be regarded as material unless it misleads the accused or occasions a failure of justice.
The court ruled that a Managing Director cannot be held vicariously liable for a company's actions without specific statutory provisions.
Entrustment of property under employment constitutes criminal breach of trust; conviction under Section 408 upheld despite claims of FIR delay and improper examination.
Criminal Law – Offence of Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or b banker, merchant or agent – Appeal against Acquittal – Whether Acquittal justified - Prosecution has also to prove that the ....
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
