Jagabandhu Sethi and Ors. v. State of Odisha and Ors.

Case Number: CRLMC No.393 of 2020

Date of Decision: 25th April 2022

The Petitioner along with Opposite Parties 2 and 3 was facing trial for the commission of the alleged offices under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 294, 307, 354, 302, 149 of the IPC, read with Section 3 of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (S.C. and S.T. (P.O.A) Act). Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court allowing the prayer of the prosecution for recalling P.W.13 (Seta @Seeta Mallick) in exercise of power under Section 311 Cr. P.C., the present CRLMC was filed by the Petitioner.

The Prosecution had urged in the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution that since there are two accused persons with the same name Pratap Rout whose father’s name differ, P.W.13 is required to be recalled to clarify the position for just decision of the case.

The Petitioner contended that Seeta Mallick (P.W.13) was examined, cross-examined and discharged on 12th February, 2016. On 10th December, 2019, the Additional Public Prosecutor, Bhadrak filed an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. to recall said P.W.13 and another for re-examination. He further contended that allowing this prayer would amount to filling up of the lacuna by the prosecution and as such cannot be allowed.

This Court held that allowing the petition to recall P.W.13 would amount to enabling the prosecution filling a lacuna regarding the identity of accused which in the given facts, would result in miscarriage of justice. The CRLMC was thereby allowed.

Pravasini Mohanty v. State of Odisha and Ors.

Case Number: RVWPET No. 140 of 2022

Date of decision: 23rd June 2022

In this case, the Petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Puri (Opposite Party No.2) in A.W.W. Misc. Case No.110 of 2010 to the WP(C) thereby affirming the order by which the petitioner working as Anganwadi Helper in Bisimatri Anganwadi Centre was disengaged and Opposite Party No.5 was allowed to continue as such.

The Petitioner contended that since the tenor of the counter was contrary to the factual matrix of the case at hand relating to selection of Anganwadi Helper and the same was taken into consideration by this Court while passing the judgment under review, in the interest of Justice in exercise of review jurisdiction, the said judgment ought to be reviewed and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed or in the alternative, recalling the judgment under review matter should be heard afresh.

The Court relied on the case of Rajendra Kumar v. Rambhai (AIR 2003 SC 2095) and iterated that there being no error apparent on the face of record which is the condition for entertaining a Review application, the RVWPET does not merit consideration. The Review petition was thereby rejected.