JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

Kulamani Parida v. State of Odisha

Case Number: CRLMC No.3756 of 2016

Date of Decision: 9th November, 2022

The Petitioner challenged the order of the trial court whereby the court took cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

The background of the case is that the Chief Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Bhubaneswar Branch alleged that the State Bank of Travancore, Bhubaneswar Branch had sanctioned financial assistance to the tune of Rs.600 lakhs to M/s. Chhotray Suppliers, a partnership firm, on mortgage of an immovable property. Later, the bank, in regular course of business for search report, noticed at Registrar of Companies that Bank’s charge over the mortgaged property has been shown as satisfied against a ‘No-Objection Certificate’ purportedly issued by the bank. However, no such letter had been issued and signed by the Chief Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Bhubaneswar Branch. In fact, the loan was never satisfied. The matter of forgery and impersonation was brought to the police. During investigation, it was revealed from the document that they were indeed forged. The petitioner was the Chartered Accountant of the firm and was named as a co-conspirator in the case.

The court held that the allegation appearing in the F.I.R. and the complaint of the Bank vis-à-vis the Petitioner does not make out a case constituting the offences included in the chargesheet as neither the Petitioner was a part of the business transaction allegedly to have conducted by the co-accused persons nor that the document in question, allegedly to have been forged and fabricated, is attributed to the present Petitioner. In absence of a material showing his personal interest in any gain/loss in the impugned transaction, the court quashed the order vis-à-vis the petitioner’s liability.

Sarathi Mohapatra and others v. State of Odisha

Case Number: CRLA No.11 of 2004

Date of decision: 14th December, 2022

This Appeal was filed challenging the judgement of the trial court wherein the appellant(s) had been found guilty in the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

The context was that a dispute arose between Kamini Mohapatra and Sita Mohapatra over an owed debt. Sarathi Mohapatra, Husband of Sita, threatened Thakur, Husband of Kamini, and declared he would take their lives within 15 days. The next morning, Thakur Mohapatra was killed by Sarathi and the other three appellants, with an assault of knives, spades and guptis. The prosecution brought in eye witnesses and corroborated it with the testimony of the appellants under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The defence decried false accusation and questioned the veracity of the eye witnesses.

The court held that the testimony of the eyewitness who did not deviate from what she deposed being present in the scene of occurrence assures her truthfulness to the factum of incident. The argument of the Appellants, therefore, to the effect that the eye witnesses have been planted is far from truth and deserves to be rejected.

Record Room Digitization Center