Back
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Arun Kumar Mohanty – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha (Vigilance) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner received land compensation under mistaken belief. (Para 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 2. court recognized a lack of criminal intent due to good faith. (Para 8 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. arguments centered on the adequacy of the evidence and good faith. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. court quashed the order, discharging the petitioner from charges. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court assailed the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No.36 of 2017, whereby his application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge from all the offences charged-sheeted, has been turned down.
During the period from 1979-1983, one Bhramarabar Mohanty was residing at Kesharpur in the house of one Sukanta Kishore Mohanty on rent. While he was residing there, he had purchased lands appertaining to Plot No.486, Khata No.11, Mouza-Mushadih measuring Ac. 0.12 dec. from Uchhaba Swain and another plot bearing No.497 & 498, Khata No.24, Mouza-Bijaychandrapur measuring Ac.1.00 dec. from Jadumani Mangaraj in the name of his son Arun Kumar Mohanty (name sake of the present petitioner) through RSD No.2115 dated 03.04.198
Mistaken identity and good faith negates criminal liability as per Section 79 IPC because no wrongful intent was established.
A legal practitioner must verify client identities and cannot evade liability for facilitating fraud in legal proceedings.
when there is a dispute between rival claimants, though not they appeared before the Acquisition Officer, still, they can claim compensation awarded under the Award.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific and credible evidence to establish the commission of a cognizable offence, especially in cases involving allegations of....
Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants should follow established procedures; lesser measures like bailable warrants must be considered first to uphold the rights of the accused.
Point of Law : Respondents, therefore, cannot retain the amounts received by them. Instead, they will have to deposit these amounts before the Reference Court.
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
