Suresh Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. .....prayer and consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing.2. heard.3. this crlmc arises out of a petition filed under section 482 of cr.p.c. wherein the petitioner challenges the order dated 25.4.2005 passed by the s.d.j.m. (s), cuttack in icc case no. 1041 of 2004 rejecting his petition under section 205 of cr.p.c.4 the petitioner is the accused in the said complaint case on the allegation of having committed offence under sections 294/323 of ipc. on 11.4.2005 he filed a petition under section 205 of cr.p.c. to dispense with his personal attendance before the court on each date of posting of the case and to permit him to be represented by his lawyer. as per the petition the petitioner is a retailer under the public distribution system and that he is also a member of village forest protection committee. if he is to attend the court on each date of posting of the case, then he cannot be able to sell the essential commodities to the consumers. he cannot also take part in protecting the village forest. the learned court below rejected the petition holding that the petitioner did not file any document to show that he is a retailer of essential.....

Judgment:

ORDER

R.N. Biswal, J.

1. Even though the case is listed for admission today, on the prayer and consent of learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing.

2. Heard.

3. This CRLMC arises out of a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner challenges the order dated 25.4.2005 passed by the S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack in ICC case No. 1041 of 2004 rejecting his petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C.

4 The petitioner is the accused in the said complaint case on the allegation of having committed offence under Sections 294/323 of IPC. On 11.4.2005 he filed a petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. to dispense with his personal attendance before the court on each date of posting of the case and to permit him to be represented by his lawyer. As per the petition the petitioner is a retailer under the Public Distribution System and that he is also a member of Village Forest Protection Committee. If he is to attend the Court on each date of posting of the case, then he cannot be able to sell the essential commodities to the consumers. He cannot also take part in protecting the village forest. The learned court below rejected the petition holding that the petitioner did not file any document to show that he is a retailer of essential commodities or that he is a member of Village Forest Protection Committee.

5. Two documents are filed by the petitioner before this Court -one showing that he is a retailer of essential commodities and the other one as a member of Village Forest Protection Committee. The offences mentioned above are not so serious. Moreover, the case arises out of a complaint petition.

6. Under such circumstances, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside subject to giving an undertaking by the petitioner before the court below that he would not dispute his identity if the case is proceeded in his absence in terms of Section 205 of Cr.P.C.

7. Accordingly the CRLMC is disposed of.

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