Allowed

Satyanarayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC21 Dec 2016CRLREV/880/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court revisited an order sealing the petitioners' leased building during a criminal trial. The court directed the investigating officer to remove seized items within two weeks and hand over vacant possession immediately, as the petitioners are not accused but witnesses suffering financial loss due to the lease agreement expiration.

What did the court decide?

Directed investigation officer to remove connected documents/accessories within two weeks and hand over vacant possession to petitioners.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned orde r dated 22.10.2016 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Soro in Misc. Case No. 107 of 2016 which ar ises out of C.T. Case No.376 of 2013.

An application was filed by the petitioners under sections 457 of Cr.P.C. with a praye r to release the building sealed by the Investigating Officer in connection Soro P.S. Case No. 187 of 2013 corresponding C.T. Case No.376 of 2013 which has been rejected by the learned Mag istrate mainly on the ground that the Investigating Officer has submitted a report stating the rein that the building is required for further investigation of case as the connected document s, articles as well as accessories have been kept inside the building premises and that the of fences are very grievous and also economic in nature and therefore, there is chance of tamperi ng with the evidence if the sealed premises is released at this stage. There is no dispute tha t the case was instituted in the year 2013. After completion of investigation, charge sheet ha s already been submitted on 04.09.2013 under sections 420/120-B/467/468/471/ 406/34 of the Ind ian Penal Code read with sections 4,5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Bann ing) Act and the investigation of the case has been kept open under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioners are

not the accused in the said case, rather they are the witnesses in the case. The petitioners h ad given the building in question on rent under agreement to M/s. Jeevanjyoti International Lt d. (hereafter the company) and the company was in possession of the building and using the sam e as its Soro Branch Office.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the meantime the period of lease agreement has already expired and due to the fact that the building has been kept under seale d condition the petitioners are unable to give the building on rent to others for which they h ave suffered financial loss.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, i t is directed that the investigation officer shall take away all the connected documents, arti cles as well as accessories of the company which are kept in the sealed building premises of t he petitioners within two weeks and handover the vacant possession to the petitioners immediat ely thereafter.

With the aforesaid observation, the revision petition is disposed of. A free copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

Satyanarayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Pradip Kumar Jha Vs D.F.O.,Rairangpur

Nirakar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Panchanan Nayak Vs Regional Manager,Rbi

Debabrata Prusty Vs Sitaram Mishra

Eswa Anand Kumar Vs Alamasethi Pratima

Mohammed Fakruddin Shadat Vs Sabina Begum