The Court dismissed the Criminal Revision filed by Satyanarayan Panda, challenging an order under Section 457 Cr.P.C. that refused to release an seized mobile phone. The High Court held the revision was not maintainable.
Criminal Revision dismissed as not maintainable.
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
CRLREV No. 435 of 2021
Satyanarayan Panda
…. Petitioner
Mr. Anirudha Das, Advocate
Versus
State of Odisha
…. Opposite Party Mr. K.K. Nayak, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER Order No. 02.12.2021
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
Panda.
maintainable.
.........................
(Savitri Ratho) Judge
Sukanta
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the rejection of an order under Section 457 Cr.P.C. is maintainable.
Whether the seized mobile phone belonging to the applicant can be released.
Whether the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the release application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. in a case under NDPS Act requires revision.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Satyanarayan Panda
State of Odisha
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
