The High Court, in a Criminal Miscellaneous Case, declined to interfere with the trial proceedings. It directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months given the case dates back to 2002 and disposed of the miscellaneous application.
Directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months; application disposed of.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 655 of 2021
Amiya Kumar Rath
…. Petitioner
Mr. S. Panda, Adv.
-Versus -
State of Odisha …. Opposite Party
Mr. P. Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER_
11.11.2021
Order No.
2.
in their entirety no case is made out against the petitioner even prima facie. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to dying declaration of the victim and other materials on record. It is also submitted that the accused is prejudiced due to pendency of the trial for such a long time.
Page 1 of 1
( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge
A.K. Rana
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order should be interfered with considering the pendency of the trial.
Amiya Kumar Rath
State of Odisha
Sashikanta Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
