The court dismissed the Criminal Misc. Case filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As the petitioner had already approached the Revisional Court which dismissed their prayer, no miscarriage of justice was found. The court held no scope for interference under inherent powers.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRLMC No. 1937 of 2010
08.08.2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already t
aken consent to engage some other counsel and therefore, he has no instruction in the matter.
None appears on behalf of the petitioner.
As it appears from the case records, the opposite party no.2 filed a petition
under section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the seized vehicle (Tata -1613 Turbo) bearing regi
stration No.OR-09-E-6877 in his favour before the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara in G.R. Case No
.21 of 2010. The learned Magistrate after considering the submissions of the respective partie
s vide order dated 13.5.2010 has been pleased to release the seized vehicle bearing registrati
on No.OR-09-E-6877 in favour of the opposite party no.2 Aparti Behera subject to certain condi
tions. The said order was challenged by the petitioner Prasanta Kumar Barik before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2010. The learne
d Revisional Court vide order dated 09.07.2010 has been pleased to dismiss the revision petiti
on and accordingly, upheld the order dated 13.05.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapa
ra in G.R. Case No.21 of 2010. Challenging the said order passed by the learned Revisional Cou
rt, this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. Law is well settled that in the
garb of section 482 Cr.P.C., second revision petition is not maintainable in the eye of law.
Once the petitioner
has approached the Revisional Court and his prayer has been turned down by the Revisional Cour
t, in absence of any miscarriage of justice or patent illegality in the Revisional Courts orde
r, there is no scope for interference in this Criminal Misc. Case which has been filed invokin
g inherent power of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Perused the impugned orders passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara in G.R.
Case No.21 of 2010 as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in Crimina
l Revision Petition No.10 of 2010. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders so
as to invoke the inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. Case being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
S. K. Sahoo, J.
4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable as a second revision after dismissal by the Revisional Court.
Whether any miscarriage of justice or patent illegality exists in the impugned order to justify exercise of inherent powers.
Whether the impugned orders releasing the seized vehicle are liable to be quashed.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Prasanta Kumar Barik
Aparti Behera
S. K. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court