Advocates:
['DEBARAJ MOHANTY', '', 'A MISHRA', 'B PANDA', 'D BEHERA']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.170 of 2022

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.

….

Petitioner

Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and Others

….

Opp. Parties

Ms. S. Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

CORAM:

SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

20.4.2022

Order No.

02.

1.

Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.

Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for State – Opposite

Party.

2.

The impugned order dated 3^rd December, 2021 (Annexure-4) of

the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda in 2(C)CC No.83 of 2019 is the

subject matter of challenge in the present petition wherein the

application of the workman for intervention has been allowed.

3.

It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that when the offence

is under Section 29 of the I.D. Act, a criminal proceeding, the course

of trial is between the Court and the offender, where the workman has

no right of being heard or to participate for the complaint being

lodged at the instance of Labour Enforcement Officer,.

4.

Admittedly, the proceeding being a criminal proceeding in

respect of offence under Section 29 of the I.D. Act, the procedure

prescribed under the Cr.P.C. is applicable for trial by operation of

Page 2 of 4

Section 4 of the Cr.P.C. Section 24(8) read with section 301(2) of the

Cr.P.C. authorizes the victim to participate in the proceeding, subject

to such limitation. Considering the definition of victim as enumerated

in the Code, the workman, who is the beneficiary of the Industrial

Award, is considered as the victim in respect of offence under Section

29 of the I.D. Act. The victim9s right of hearing in the criminal

proceeding has been explained in a recent decision of the Supreme

Court in Jagjeet Singh and others vs- Ashish Mishra alias Monu

and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 453. It has been held that,

<23. It cannot be gainsaid that the right of a victim

under the amended Cr.P.C. are substantive,

enforceable, and are another facet of human rights.

The victim9s right, therefore, cannot be termed or

construed restrictively like a brutum fulmen. We

reiterate that these rights are totally independent,

incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to

those of the State under the Cr.P.C. The presence of

8State9 in the proceedings, therefore, does not

tantamount to according a hearing to a 8victim9 of

the crime.

24. A 8victim9 within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot

be asked to await the commencement of trial for

asserting his/her right to participate in the

proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to be

heard at every step post the occurrence of an

offence. Such a 8victim9 has unbridled participatory

rights from the stage of investigation till the

culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or

revision. We may hasten to clarify that 8victim9 and

8complainant/informant9

are

two

distinct

connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not

always necessary that the complainant/informant is

Page 3 of 4

also a 8victim9, for even a stranger to the act of

crime can be an 8informant9, and similarly, a

8victim9 need not be the complainant or informant of

a felony.

25. The above stated enunciations are not to be

conflated with certain statutory provisions, such as

those present in Special Acts like the Scheduled

Cast

and

Scheduled

Tribes

(Prevention

of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, where there is a legal

obligation to hear the victim at the time of granting

bail. Instead, what must be taken note of is that;

First, the Indian jurisprudence is constantly

evolving, whereby, the right of victims to be heard,

especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is

increasingly being acknowledged; Second, where

the victims themselves have come forward to

participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be

accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective

hearing.