{"id":187397,"date":"2010-05-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010"},"modified":"2015-03-21T14:42:52","modified_gmt":"2015-03-21T09:12:52","slug":"mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mitra Sankar Nanda vs Vrs on 5 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court<\/div>\n
Mitra Sankar Nanda vs Vrs on 5 May, 2010<\/div>\n
                                     B.K.PATEL, J.\n<\/pre>\n
               Criminal Revision No.252 of 2002 (Decided on 5.5.2010).\n<\/p>\n
MITRA SANKAR NANDA                                .............          Petitioner.\n\n                                       .Vrs.\n\nSTATE OF ORISSA & ANR.                           ..............        Opp.Parties.\n\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (ACT NO.2 OF 1974) – SEC.300(1)<\/p>\n
    For Petitioner – M\/s. D.K.Mishra, R.P.Mohapatra, D.Panda,
\n                    S.K.Ratha & R.K.Parida.\n<\/p>\n
                     M\/s. A.K.nanda & G.N.Sahoo.\n<\/p>\n
    For Opp.Parties – Addl. Standing counsel
\n                    M\/s. G.Pr.Mohanty, H.K.Kar, N.K.Das
\n                    & M.K.Maharana (for O.P.2).\n<\/p>\n
B.K.PATEL, J.        This revision is directed against judgment dated<\/p>\n
31.8.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Criminal<\/p>\n
Appeal No.1\/21 of 2000 confirming the judgment and order dated<\/p>\n
29.2.2000 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bonai in G.R. Case No.384 of<\/p>\n
1993, corresponding to Gurundia P.S. Case No.25 of 1993, by which the<\/p>\n
petitioner was convicted under Sections 341, 323 and 506(II) of the I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under<\/p>\n
Section 341 of the I.P.C., for three months under Section 323 of the<\/p>\n
I.P.C. and for six months under Section 506(II) of the I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
2.     Informant-P.W.3 was the Block Development Officer (B.D.O.), Gurundia and the
\npetitioner was working as Police Constable in Gurundia Police Station during the period
\nof occurrence. Prosecution case is that on 23.11.1993 at about 9.30 P.M. P.W.3 heard
\nthat the petitioner was abusing him in a drunken state in filthy and obscene language
\nnear his home. When P.W.3 came out from the house and went near the Block Office
\ngate, the petitioner dragged him to the road, assaulted him, threw him on the road and
\ntried to throttle his neck. The petitioner also was asking for a Tangia. Some of the Block
\npersonnel intervened to bring the occurrence to an end. Finding the Officer-In-Charge
\nabsent from the Gurundia Police Station, P.W.3 submitted F.I.R. Ext.1 to Sub-Divisional
\n Police Officer (S.D.P.O.), Bonai. On being directed by the S.D.P.O., Bonai, Circle
\nInspector of Police, Bonai took up investigation and submitted final report stating the
\ncase to be mistake of law. In response to protest petition filed by P.W.3, enquiry under
\nSection 202 of the Cr.P.C. was conducted by the learned S.D.J.M., Bonai and
\ncognizance of offences under Sections 323, 294 and 506 of the I.P.C. was taken.
\nPetitioner took the plea of complete denial. In order to substantiate the case,
\nprosecution examined three witnesses and relied upon F.I.R. Ext.1. P.Ws.1 and 2 were
\noccurrence witnesses. On appraisal of evidence on record, learned S.D.J.M. convicted
\nand sentenced the petitioner as stated supra.\n<\/p>\n
3.     It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the very
\nbeginning the petitioner assailed his prosecution in the present case on the ground of
\nbar under Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. on the assertion that trial in the present case
\namounted to double jeopardy. It was submitted that on the basis of allegations arising
\nout of the self-same occurrence, the petitioner was tried for alleged commission of
\noffences under Sections 160, 341, 323, 324 and 294 of the I.P.C. and acquitted in G.R.
\nCase No.383 of 1993 in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bonai. It was strenuously argued
\nthat both the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the embargo under Section 300
\nof the Cr.P.C. It was categorically admitted by the informant-P.W.3 himself in course of
\nhis cross-examination that G.R. Case No.383 of 1993 was also registered for the self-
\nsame       occurrence. It was further argued that non-examination of the Investigating
\nPolice Officer gravely prejudiced the petitioner. On completion of investigation, final
\nreport stating the case to be mistake of law was filed by the Investigating Police Officer
\non the ground that on the basis of allegations arising out of self-same occurrence
\nGurundia P.S. Case No.24 of 1993 had been registered prior to registration of the
\npresent case as Gurundia P.S. Case No.25 of 1993. Confusion, if any, which arose in
\nthe mind of both the learned Courts below regarding the cases to have arisen out of the
\nself-same occurrence would have been clarified by the Investigating Police Officer.\n<\/p>\n
4. In reply, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the State and learned counsel
\nfor the opposite party no.2-informant that both the learned Courts below have assigned
\ncogent reasons in support of their findings to the effect that facts and circumstances of
\nthe case do not attract application of provision under Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. It has
\nalso been concluded that non-examination of the Investigating Police Officer has not
\nbeen prejudicial to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
5.      The vital question raised in this revision is the applicability of bar under the
\nprovision under Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. against the proceeding in G.R. Case No.384
\nof 1993 in view of earlier judgment in G.R. Case No.383 of 1993. Section 300 of the
\nCr.P.C. reads:-\n<\/p>\n
            “Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.-
\n        (1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an
\n        offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or
\n        acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence,
\n        nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the
\n        one made against him might have been made under sub-section(1) of section
\n        221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.
\n        (2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with
\n        the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a
\n        separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under
\n        sub-section (1) of section 220.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing
\n        consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from
\n        that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-mentioned
\n        offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court
\n       to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may,
\n           notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction be subsequently charged with,
\n           and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he
\n           may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not
\n           competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
\n       (5) A person discharged under section 258 shall not be tried again for the same
\n       offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of
\n       any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate.
\n       (6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General
\n       Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of section 188 of this Code.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.      Provision under Article 20 of the Constitution of India provides that no person
\nshall be prosecuted and punished for the self-same offence more than once. But
\nprovision under Sub-section (1) of Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. lays down that a person
\nonce convicted or acquitted cannot be tried for the same offence subject to exceptions
\nunder Sub-section (2) to (6) thereof.\n<\/p>\n
7.      In Maqbool Hussain -vrs.- State of Bombay : AIR 1953 SC 325, it was
\nobserved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court :\n<\/p>\n
        “(7) The fundamental right which is guaranteed in Art.20(2) enunciates the
\n        principle of “autrefois convict” or “double jeopardy”. The roots of that principle
\n        are to be found in the well established rule of the common law of England “that
\n        where a person has been convicted of an offence by a Court of competent
\n        jurisdiction the conviction is a bar to all further criminal proceedings for the same
\n        offence”. (Per Charles J. in Reg. v. Miles (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 423 (A)). To the
\n        same effect is the ancient maxim “Nimo Bis Debet Puniri Pro Uno Delicto”, that
\n        is to say that no one ought to be twice punished for one offence or as it is
\n        sometimes written “Pro Eadem Causa” that is for the same cause.
\n        (8) This is the principle on which the party pursued has available to him the
\n        plea of “autrefois convict” or “autrefois acquit”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        “The plea of ‘autrefois convict’ or “autrefois acquit” avers that the defendant has
\nbeen previously convicted or acquitted on a charge for the same offence as that in
\nrespect of which he is arraigned…….The question for the jury on the issue is whether
\nthe defendant has previously been in jeopardy in respect of the charge on which he is
\narraigned, for the rule of law is that a person must not be put in peril twice for the same
\noffence. The test is whether the former offence and the offence now charged have the
\nsame ingredients in the sense that the facts constituting the one are sufficient to justify a
\nconviction of the other, not that the facts relied on by the Crown are the same in the two
\ntrials. A plea of “autrefois acquit” is not proved unless it is shown that the verdict of
\nacquittal of the previous charge necessarily involves an acquittal of the latter”. (Vide
\nHalsbury’s Laws of England-Hailsham Edition-Vol.9, Pages 152 & 153, Para.212.)
\n        (9). This principle found recognition in section 26 of the General Clauses Act,
\n        1897-\n<\/p>\n
                “Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more
\n        enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished
\n        under either or any of those enactments but shall not be liable to be punished
\n        twice for the same offence”,
\n        and also in S.403 (1), Criminal P.C., 1898-\n<\/p>\n
                “A person who has been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an
\n       offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or
\n       acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence,
\n       nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the
\n       one made against him might have been made under S.236, or for which he
\n       might have been convicted under S.237″.”\n<\/p>\n
8.      In Khartan and others -vrs.- State of Uttar Pradesh : AIR 1965 SC 83, it has
\nbeen held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a plea of autrefois acquit which is
\nstatutorily recognized in India under Section 403 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 300 of the new
\nCr.P.C.) arises when a person is tried again for the same offence or on the same facts
\nfor any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might
\nhave been made under Section 236 (Section 221(1) of the new Cr.P.C.) or for which he
\nmight have been convicted under Section 237 (Section 221 (2) of the new Cr.P.C.).\n<\/p>\n
9.      In Mohammad Safi -vrs.- The State of West Bengal : AIR 1966 SC 69, it has
\nbeen held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the provisions of Section 403 are based
\nupon the general principle of autrefois acquit recognized by the English Courts. The
\nprinciple upon which the right to plead autrefois acquit depends is that a man may not
\nbe put twice in jeopardy for the same offence. This principle is incorporated in Article 20
\nof the Constitution. In order that the bar in Section 403 (1) of the Cr.P.C. may apply it
\nmust be shown that a person has once been actually tried by a competent court for
\nsame offence charged in the second trial, or though not actually tried for he same
\noffence charged in the second trial, he could have been on the same facts charged with
\nit under Section 236 or convicted of it under Section 237 of the Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
10. In Thakur Ram and others -vrs.- The State of Bihar : AIR
\n1966 SC 911, it has been held that the provisions under Section 403 (1)
\nof the old Cr.P.C. bars the trial of the person again not only for the same
\noffence but also for any other offence based on the same facts.\n<\/p>\n
11.     In Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari -v.- State (N.C.T. of Delhi) : 2005 Crl.L.J. 2569 the
\nappellant and two others had earlier been charged for kidnapping in Sessions Case and
\nacquitted by Additional Sessions Judge. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Curt that
\nonce the appellant was acquitted in kidnapping case, the doctrine of autrefois acquit gets
\nattracted against his trial for kidnapping in the Designated Court under the Terrorists and
\nDisruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.\n<\/p>\n
12.     There is also rule of issue estoppel in a criminal trial. In Manipur
\nAdministration, Manipur -v.- Thokchom Bira Singh : AIR 1965 SC 87 it was held
\nthat the rule of issue estoppel in a criminal trial is that where an issue of fact has been
\ntried by a competent court on a former occasion and a finding has been reached in
\nfavour of an accused, such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res judicata against
\nthe prosecution, precluding the reception of evidence to disturb that finding of fact when
\nthe accused is tried subsequently even for a different offence which might be permitted
\nby the terms of Section 403 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Section 300 (2) of the new Cr.P.C.). The
\nrule thus relates only to the admissibility of evidence which is designed to upset a
\nfinding of fact recorded by a competent court at a previous trial. The rule is not the same
\nas the plea of double jeopardy or autrefois acquit, but Section 403 of the Cr.P.C. does
\nnot preclude the applicability of this rule of issue estoppel.\n<\/p>\n
13.     In Ravinder Singh -vrs.- State of Haryana : AIR 1975 SC 856, it has been
\npointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court :\n<\/p>\n
        “In order to invoke the rule of issue estoppel in a criminal trial, there is an issue
\n        estoppel, if it appears that the same point was determined in favour of an
\n        accused in a previous criminal trial which is brought in issue on a second
\n       criminal trial of the same accused. In order to invoke the rule of issue estoppel
\n       not only the parties in the two trials must be the same but also the fact-in-issue
\n       proved or not in the earlier trial must be identical with what is sought to be
\n       reagitated in the subsequent trial.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.     There is no dispute with regard to legal proposition that a person cannot be
\nexposed to double jeopardy in view of provision under Section 300 of the Cr.P.C.
\nHowever, it appears that both the Courts below came to a conclusion that allegations in
\nthe present case, i.e., in G.R. Case No.384 of 1993 and earlier G.R. Case No.383 of
\n1993 arose out of two occurrences. On perusal of materials on record it is found that the
\nfinding is contrary to evidence on record. P.W.3-informant has categorically admitted in
\nhis cross-examination that G.R. Case No.383 of 1993 was also registered by Gurundia
\nPolice for the self-same occurrence. He deposed:\n<\/p>\n
       “It is a fact that another police case G.R. 383\/93 was also
\n       registered by Gurundia Police for the same occurrence”.\n<\/p>\n
Thus, there is clear admission in unambiguous term that allegations in G.R. Case
\nNo.383 of 1993 corresponding to Gurundia P.S. Case No.24 of 1993 also related to the
\noccurrence in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
15.     In the final report submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in the present case
\nit had been concluded:\n<\/p>\n
            “During course of investigation when formal FIR was drawn up vide Gurundia
\n        P.S. Case No.25\/93, I found that on the same facts, date, hour of occurrence,
\n        spot, a case vide Gurundia P.S. Case No.24 dt.24-11-93 U\/s.
\n        160\/341\/323\/324\/294 IPC was registered and investigated by ASI, M.K.
\n        Chodhury, in the capacity of OIC, Gurundia P.S.
\n                 Under the above facts and circumstances after supervision and
\n         investigation of both the cases it was found that case no.24\/93 is a true one
\n         u\/s.160 IPC and both the accused persons C\/776 M.S. Nanda and Sri P.K.
\n         Das, Ex-B.D.O., Gurundia Block Office made themselves liable u\/s 160 IPC.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.     It appears from the judgment dated 20.1.2000 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
\nBonai in G.R. Case No.383 of 1993, i.e., Gurundia P.S. Case No.24 of 1993 and other
\nmaterials on record that in the said case for alleged occurrence which took place at
\nabout 10.00 P.M. on 23.11.1993, case was registered against petitioner as well as
\ninformant-P.W.3 for commission of offences under Sections 160, 341, 323, 324 and 294
\nI.P.C. Both of them faced trial, in course of which as many as seven witnesses were
\nexamined, and were acquitted. Allegation, in brief, in the said case was that on hearing
\nsome persons abusing him, P.W.3 came out from the Block campus by climbing over the
\nboundary gate and challenged as to why they were abusing him. During challenge, the
\ninformant-P.W.3 and petitioner caught hold of each other and rolled on the road. They
\nalso assaulted each other by fist blows and the informant bit petitioner’s left thumb.
\nThus, it is evident that occurrence took place on the public road near the Block gate at
\nabout 9.30 to 10.00 P.M. Therefore, on the face of clear admission made by P.W.3 that
\nG.R. Case No.383 of 1993 was also registered for the same occurrence, obviously, the
\npetitioner is found to have been already tried for offences and acquitted thereof on the
\nsame fact on the basis of which the present case was registered. In the present case,
\nthe petitioner faced prosecution of offences under Sections 341, 323 and 506 (II) of the
\nI.P.C. In the earlier trial in G.R. Case No.383 of 1993 also allegations were made of
\ncommission of offences under Sections 341 and 323 as well as 324 and 294 of the
\nI.P.C. Nature of allegations made in the present case as well as the earlier case reveals
\n that in the earlier case also charge under Section 506 (II) of the I.P.C. could have been
\nmade against the petitioner. Judgments passed by both the learned courts below
\nsuffered from non-consideration of fact involving both the cases more particularly in
\nG.R. Case No.383 of 1993, which resulted in a trial, barred under Section 300 (1) of the
\nCr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
17.      It was rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-
\nexamination of Investigating Police Officer by the prosecution caused prejudice to the
\npetitioner. Had the Investigating Police Officer been examined, he could have certainly
\nunfolded the circumstance under which final report had been submitted in this case, as
\nmentioned supra at paragraph-15 of this judgment. However, the informant-P.W.3, who
\nalso faced trial in G.R. Case No.383 of 1993, has categorically admitted that both the
\ncases arose out of same occurrence. In view of such admission, the learned Courts
\nbelow committed illegality in not accepting the petitioner’s plea of bar against his trial in
\nthe present case in view of provision under Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C. as well as the
\nrule of issue estoppel.\n<\/p>\n
18.      In view of above discussions, the revision is allowed. Impugned judgments
\ndated 31.8.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Criminal Appeal
\nNo.1\/21 of 2000 and dated 29.2.2000 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bonai in G.R.
\nCase No.384 of 1993 are set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            Revision allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court Mitra Sankar Nanda vs Vrs on 5 May, 2010 B.K.PATEL, J. Criminal Revision No.252 of 2002 (Decided on 5.5.2010). MITRA SANKAR NANDA …………. Petitioner. .Vrs. STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. ………….. Opp.Parties. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (ACT NO.2 OF 1974) – SEC.300(1) For Petitioner – M\/s. D.K.Mishra, R.P.Mohapatra, D.Panda, S.K.Ratha & R.K.Parida. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187397","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-orissa-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMitra Sankar Nanda vs Vrs on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mitra Sankar Nanda vs Vrs on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-21T09:12:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mitra Sankar Nanda vs Vrs on 5 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-21T09:12:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3199,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Orissa High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Mitra Sankar Nanda vs Vrs on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-21T09:12:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mitra Sankar Nanda vs Vrs on 5 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mitra Sankar Nanda vs Vrs on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mitra Sankar Nanda vs Vrs on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-21T09:12:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mitra Sankar Nanda vs Vrs on 5 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-21T09:12:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010"},"wordCount":3199,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Orissa High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010","name":"Mitra Sankar Nanda vs Vrs on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-21T09:12:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mitra-sankar-nanda-vs-vrs-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mitra Sankar Nanda vs Vrs on 5 May, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187397","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=187397"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187397\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187397"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187397"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187397"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}