Upendra Ku.Rout v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Orissa dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an impugned order declining a summons request for documents. The Court held the request premature and allowed renewal at the defence evidence stage.
What did the court decide?
Request to summon documents dismissed; petitioner allowed to renew request at defence evidence stage; interim order vacated.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.87 of 2013
Upendra Kumar Rout
…. Petitioner
M/s. M.B. Das, Advocate and associates
-versus-
State of Orissa and another
…. Opposite Parties Mr. J. Katikia, A.G.A.
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
- ORDER
- Order No. 08.07.2022
- The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 19th November 2012, passed by learned ACJM (Special), Cuttack in G.R. Case No.36 of 2006 declining the request of the Petitioner to summon certain documents including compendium of Central Office circulars with manual of instruction of cash department functioning, Key movement register and so on. The request has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that two of the prosecution witnesses including the Investigating Officer are yet to be examined and therefore, the request is premature.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in declining the petitioner's request to summon certain documents at that stage of the trial.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Upendra Kumar Rout
- respondent
State of Orissa
Coram
Dr. S. Muralidhar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court