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

2020 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 8

ORISSA HIGH COURT
DIPTI RANJAN PATNAIK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ODISHA(VIG.) – Respondent


Advocates:
['SARADA PRASANNA SARANGI', '', 'P K DASH', 'S MOHANTY', 'SANGRAM DAS']

D.Dash,J.

The petitioners by filing this revision have assailed an order dated 28.07.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar in VGR Case No. 59 of 2009 (T.R. Case No. 80 of 2011). By the said order, the petition filed by the petitioners who have been arraigned as accused persons therein for their discharge has been rejected. Thus, the legality and propriety of the said order whereby and whereunder, the court below has presumed the existence of a prima facie case against these petitioners for commission of offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the P.C. Act”) and under section 420/379/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “the IPC”) as well as section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter, called as “MMDR Act”) has been called in question.

2. The factual exposition necessary for the purpose are briefly stated as under:-

The petitioner no. 2 is the lessee of Unchabali Iron and Manganese Mines situated in the revenue village Unchabali in the District of Keonjhar, Odisha. The petitioner no. 1 is the General Power of Attorney holder of petitioner n

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