Dismissed

Raj Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Aug 2022CRLREV/131/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting a petition under section 311 CrPC to recall an Investigating Officer. The Court found the petitioner's arguments based on vague new facts to be dilly-dallying tactics in a Section 302 IPC case.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition (CRLREV) stands dismissed. No relief granted to the petitioner.

Raj Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.131 of 2022

¶3

Raj Kumar Sahu

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S.K. Joshi, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

…. Opp. Party

¶9

Mrs. Susamarani Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

Order No.

ORDER 27.09.2022

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶17

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kantabanji in S.C. Case No.44 of 2017 in rejecting the petition filed by him under section 311 of Cr.P.C.

¶18

It appears that a petition under section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned trial Court wherein the prayer was made to recall the Investigating Officer whose chief examination commenced on 22.07.2019 but the learned defence counsel declined to cross-examine the I.O. on 17.03.2022.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner produced the

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

deposition copy of the Investigating Officer, which is taken on record.

¶22

It is stated at the Bar that the case is posted for argument.

¶23

It is stated that in the recall petition, it is mentioned that some new facts came to the knowledge of the accused persons as regards deliberate non-production of material objects for which cross-examination of the Investigating Officer is necessary. Nothing has been stated as to what are those new facts. It is a case of the year 2017 and that to for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. No questionnaire has been given in the petition. It appears to be a dilly-dallying tactics adopted by the petitioner through his counsel.

¶24

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and after going through the case record, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kantabanji.

¶25

Accordingly, the CRLREV being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

¶26

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

( S.K. Sahoo)

Judge

RKM

Page 2 of 2

Raj Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Behera Vs State of Odisha

Arjun Singh Vs State of Orissa

Alok Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha

Satyashri@Satyashree Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Sarathi Bhuyan Vs State of Orissa

Sisira Pradhan Vs State of Orissa