9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer (Vigilance Cell) Bhubaneshwar, (2) to quash the order dated 9.12.2002 taking cognizance of offences punishable under Section 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'); and (3) to quash the order passed rejecting the prayer in terms of Section 205 of the Code and rejecting the prayer to recall the order directing issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest. It is to be noted that Vigilance G.R. Case No. 17 of 2001 was at the relevant point of time pending in the Court of Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. The starting point of litigation was drawing up of first information report on 29.5.2001 by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Unit Office, B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;s approach was clearly erroneous. Reliance on the decision of the Patna High Court, referred above, was really of no consequence as the judgment in question has been set aside by this Court in State of Bihar and Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanha and Ors. etc. 1980CriLJ98 . 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State further submitted that the decision of the Patna High Court, on which the reliance was placed has been set aside by this Court as noted above and unfortunately effect of the judgment by this Court had not been considered by the High Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the whole case was outcome of political conspiracy and mala fides. If the government officials were not proceeded with, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asually. From the judgment of the High Court it is noticed that the hearing was concluded on 13.3.2003 and the judgment was delivered on 25.4.2003. It was certainly the duty of the counsel for the respondent before the High Court to bring to the notice of the Court that the decision relied upon by the petitioner before the High Court has been overruled by this Court. Moreover, it was duty of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court not to cite an overruled judgment. It is not that the decision is lost in antiquity. It has been referred to in a large number of cases since it was rendered. It has been referred to recently in many cases e.g. S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat 2001CriLJ4195 , M.C. Abraham v. State of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
