Dismissed

Pratap Ku.Choudhury v. State

Orissa HC9 Nov 2020CRA/210/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two interim applications by appellants Pravat Chandra Mohanty and Pratap Kumar Choudhury seeking extended time to surrender. The Court found no reason to extend the surrender date fixed by its earlier judgment and ordered immediate arrest if they failed to surrender. It noted medical complications would be addressed post-surrender.

What did the court decide?

Both interim applications for grant of time to surrender were dismissed; appellants required to surrender by the original date.

Pratap Ku.Choudhury Vs State — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

¶2

I.A. No.07 of 2020

¶3

(Arising out of CRA No. 207 Of 1988)

¶4

¶5

Pravat Chandra Mohanty ……… Appellant/ Petitioner -VersusState of Orissa ……… Respondent/ Opposite Party

¶6

I.A. No.06 of 2020

¶7

(Arising out of CRA No. 210 Of 1988)

¶8

Pratap Kumar Choudhury ……… Appellant/ Petitioner -VersusState of Orissa ……… Respondent/ Opposite Party For Petitioner: - Mr. Yasobant Das (in CRA No. 207 Of (Senior Advocate) 1988) For Petitioner: - Mr. Devashis Panda (in CRA No. 210 Of 1988) For State of Odisha: - Mr. Lalatendu Samantaray Addl. Govt. Advocate -------------------------------

¶9

23.11.2020 The appellant/petitioner Pravat Chandra Mohanty in CRA No.207 of 1988 and the appellant/petitioner Pratap Kumar

¶10

¶11

Choudhury in CRA No.210 of 1988 faced trial in the Court of learned Asst. Sessions Judge -cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Cuttack in Sessions Trial No.246 of 1985 for the offences punishable under sections 304, 342, 323, 294, 201, 167, 477-A, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.08.1988, though acquitted the appellants of the charges under sections 294, 201, 167 and 477-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, however found them guilty under sections 304 Part-II, 342, 323, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment five years and eight years respectively for the offence under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. Each of the appellants was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶12

The appeals preferred by the appellants were heard analogously and vide judgement and order dated 09.11.2020, this Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of

¶13

¶14

conviction of both the appellants for the offences under sections 304 Part-II/34 and 342/34 of the Indian Penal code, however their conviction under sections 323/34 and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld and both the appellants were also convicted under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were further sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Since the appellants were on bail, their bail bonds were cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within two weeks from the date of judgment for undergoing the remaining period of sentence.

¶15

The appellant Pravat Chandra Mohanty has filed I.A. No.07 of 2020 for grant of two months time for surrendering before the learned trial Court. In the application, it is stated that the appellant is aged about seventy six years and on 13.11.2020 he suffered from chest pain for which he was taken to Hi-Tech Medical and Hospital, Bhubaneswar and the doctor diagnosed hypersensitive heart disease, COPD (Chronic Obstructive

¶16

¶17

Pulmonary Disease) and unstable Angina. The petitioner is under treatment and the doctor advised him for rest and verbally advised him to avoid any anxiety, tension or stress, otherwise it might lead to worsen the disease condition. It is further stated that the petitioner has been suffering from hypertension, breathing problem along with partial blindness and other ailments since last several years and that he is not in a position to surrender before the learned trial Court within time stipulated as per the judgment. Medical document of Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, Bhubaneswar dated 13.11.2020 has been annexed to the interim application.

¶18

The appellant Pratap Kumar Choudhury has filed I.A. No.06 of 2020 for grant of two weeks time to surrender before the learned trial Court. In the application, it is stated that the petitioner is now aged about seventy three years and is suffering from enlargement of the prostate for which he is under treatment of an Urologist since September 2020 and requires special diet prescribed for him and that direction be given to the jail authorities to provide him specialized diet and treatment facilities on his surrender. A copy of the ultrasound report of Cure Well Diagnostic, Cuttack dated 08.05.2020 has been annexed to the application.

¶19

¶20

Both the interim applications are heard analogously

¶21

and disposed of by this common order.

¶22

After going through the applications filed by the appellants and on hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State, I find no reason to extend the date of surrender as fixed by this Court as per judgment and order dated 09.11.2020. In case the appellants fail to surrender as per the date fixed, the learned trial Court shall take immediate step for their arrest in accordance with law. Needless to say, if any health complication is reported to the Jail Superintendent by the appellants after their surrender, necessary medical treatment shall be provided to them.

¶23

Accordingly, both the interim applications are

¶24

dismissed.

¶25

A copy of the order be immediately communicated

¶26

during course of the day to the learned trial Court.

¶27

S.K. Sahoo, J.

¶28

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 23^rd November 2020/Pravakar/Sisir

Pratap Ku.Choudhury v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap Ku.Choudhury v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sidhanta Khadanga Vs State of Odisha

Daktar @ Motilal Mohanta Vs State of Odisha

Kanhu Charan Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Pravat Ch.Mohanty Vs State

Sagir Uddin Khan @ Lala Vs State of Odisha

Gopinath Marandi Vs State of Odisha