{"id":228850,"date":"2009-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009"},"modified":"2018-04-05T15:48:03","modified_gmt":"2018-04-05T10:18:03","slug":"sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sundarmohan N Ayak vs State Of Orissa & Another …. .. V … on 24 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court<\/div>\n
Sundarmohan N Ayak vs State Of Orissa & Another …. .. V … on 24 November, 2009<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
\nCRLMC No.2457 of 2009<\/p>\n
From an order dated 23.7.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\nMayurbhanj, Baripada in G.R. Case No. 530 of 2002 ‘<\/p>\n
Sundarmohan N ayak …. .. Petitioner<\/p>\n
-Versus-\n<\/p>\n
State of Orissa & another …. .. V Opp.Parties<\/p>\n
For Petitioner 1 : M \/ s S.K.Misrha, J .Pradhan,
\nK.R.Sahoo,K.R.Mohanty
\nAnd P.Prusty.\n<\/p>\n
For Opp. Parties : Mr. A.K.Mishra,’<\/p>\n
Addl. Govt. Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
PRESENT:\n<\/p>\n
THE H\u00b0N’BLE MR-‘W$TF9!3,F1NDRA~III. _ .. – . . ..\n<\/p>\n
Date of hearing: 12.11.2009 Date of Judgment: 29.1 1.21009<\/p>\n
I.Mahanty, J. The petitioner Sundarmohan Nayak- has filed the present
\napplication under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to challenge an order<\/p>\n
gdate”C1gg2\u00a7,…7M.,2Q09 passed in .G..R.,.Case No. .530 –of .2002 by the “learned” a<\/p>\n
K Chief Judicial Magistirate, Mayurbhanj, Baripada, invoking his power<\/p>\n
V”x<\/p>\n
under Section 319, Cr.P.C. by which he directed addition of the petitioner
\nas an accused and issued summons to him to appear before the court
\nand to face trial along with the other accused, namely, Bapi Nayak.\n<\/p>\n
2. From the basic facts of the case it appears that an F.I.R. was
\nlodged by one Saraswati Singh alleging that her mother Chandramani<\/p>\n
Singh died due to electrocution by coming in contact with an illegally<\/p>\n
drawn electric wire, from an Lift Irrigation Point( in short ‘L.I. point’) by<\/p>\n
the present petitioner, namely, Sundarmohan Nayak. On the basis of the
\nsaid F.I.R. Badasahi P.S. Case No. 64\/02 was registered under Section
\n304 A of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and investigation was
\ntaken up. After completion of investigation Charge sheet was filed only
\nagainst Bapi Nayak–O.P.2 (son of the petitioner) and he was called upon
\nto face his trial.\n<\/p>\n
In course of trial a number of witnesses were examined and
\nthe case was posted for judgment. Instead of delivering the judgment the
\nlearned C.J.M. took note of the testimony of P.Ws 2, 3, 5, 8 and 10 and
\non the basis of such statements recorded in course of trial, passed the
\nimpugned order dated 23.7.2009 directing the addition of the present
\npetitioner, Sundarmohan Nayak as an accused and issued summons to<\/p>\n
him to face his trial in purported exercise of power under Section 319,<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
3. Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
strenuously urged that the materials on the basis of which the learned<\/p>\n
C.J.M. [had issued summons to theipetitioner, was veryimuch available at
\nthe time of submission of Charge sheet in the shape of statements of
\nvarious witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. However, neither
\nthe police \ufb01led Charge sheet against the present petitioner nor the learned<\/p>\n
C.J.M. issue process against the petitioner at the time of taking<\/p>\n
, at cognizance. It is therefore, submitted that the impugnedorder directing a–\n<\/p>\n
issue of summons to the petitioner in purported exercise of the power<\/p>\n
under Section 319, Cr.P.C at this belated stage cannot be sustained in
\nthe eye of law.\n<\/p>\n
4. Mr. Mishra further submitted that on a bare reading of the
\nstatements of the P.Ws. 2,3,5,8 and 10, the case of the prosecution no
\nlonger survives especially when P.W. 8, who is the owner of the Lift
\nIrrigation Point, had stated in his evidence that electricity supply to his
\nL.I. point had been disconnected more than 6 to 7 years prior to the date
\nof alleged occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
\nHon’ble Supreme Court recently in various judgments has laid down the
\nprinciples and circumstances under which the extraordinary jurisdiction
\nunder Section 319, Cr.P.C. can be exercised. In this respect he placed
\nreliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
\nBrindaban Das 85 Ors. V. State of West Bengal reported in (2009) 42
\nOCR (SC) 543, Sarabjit Singh &. Anr. v. State of Punjab reported in
\n(2009) 43 OCR (SC) 761 as well as the judgment of this Court in the case
\nof Ramakanta Behera @ Sahu & Ors v. State of Orissa<\/a> reported in
\n(2009) 42 OCR 645.\n<\/p>\n
5. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate
\nappearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted the<\/p>\n
, impugned order passed by the learned C.J.M. in exercising power under<\/p>\n
Section 319 Cr.P.C. should not be interfered with since the power of the
\nHigh Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is to be sparingly used only for the<\/p>\n
purpose of giving effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the<\/p>\n
I abuse of process   or otherwise to (secure the\ufb02erids of justice.\n<\/p>\n
In the present impugned order dated 23.7.2009 learned C.J.M. has
\ncorrectly exercised his power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. since in the
\ncourse of the trial of an offence, it appeared from the evidence of various<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses, that the present petitioner, namely,<\/p>\n
Sundararnohan .Nayak,i.not being the accused has committed an offence <\/p>\n
under Section 304 A, I.P.C. and therefore he has arrayed the present<\/p>\n
petitioner as an accused and has issued summons to him. Learned State
\nCounsel further submitted that the present petitioner would suffer no
\nprejudice What-so-ever, since under sub-section( 1) of Section 319, Cr.P.C.
\non adding the present petitioner as an accused, the trial is to be
\ncommenced afresh and the witnesses were required to be lre–heard and
\ntherefore the petitioner would have adequate opportunity of defending
\nhimself.\n<\/p>\n
6. Before proceeding to deal with the contentions advanced by
\nthe learned counsel for the parties, it becomes extremely important to
\ntake note of the evidence of certain witnesses recorded in course of the
\ntrial. P.W.10, namely, Santish Chandra Nanda is the A.S.I. of Police at
\nGujidarada Outpost(Bhadrak (R)) who was the Investigating Of\ufb01cer in that
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
From his evidence it appears that on 11.6.2002 this witness
\nwas the A.S.I. of Police at Badasahi Police Station and he registered the
\ncase on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Sarasvvati Singh (P.W.3) and
\ntook up investigation into the case. In the F.I.R. (Anexure-1) to the
\npresent application the informant has stated as fo11ows:-\n<\/p>\n
” ………. ..while my mother Chandramani
\nSingh wife of late Bira Singh was proceeding to
\nvillage pond to wash her cloths and while
\ncrossing the farmland of Sri Sundarmohan
\nNayak, she came in contact with the electric
\nG.I. wire erected by him to illegally draw
\nelectricity to his house from the L.I. point and<\/p>\n
‘ ” she dieddue to e’lectro’cutio:n:” ‘  ”   ” i
\n(Translated from the F.I.R. written in Oriya)<\/p>\n
7. P.W.1O claimed that he visited the place of occurrence and on<\/p>\n
reaching the spot he found the dead body of Chandramani Singh was
\nlying there. There he examined the other witnesses. He seized an<\/p>\n
aluminum pot (being carried by the deceased) and four numbers of<\/p>\n
Ganthas'”(Blankets) and one open GII. wire from the splotiandiiiprelparedlm  <\/p>\n
the seizure list marked Exhibit-1. He further stated that during
\ninvestigation he found that there Was illegal electrical connection from the
\nL.I. point of one Pravat Acharya, son of late Purna Acharya to the house of
\nSundarmohan Nayak . lnspite of such statement recorded in examination
\nin chief, the said witness further stated that after completion of
\ninvestigation Charge sheet was submitted under Sections 304\/379, I.P.C.
\nread with Section 39 of the I.E.Act against accused Bapi Nayak
\n( son of the present petitioner) who at that stage was absconding. In
\nparagraph–3 of his deposition before the Court he has stated that “_S_1’i
\nSundarmohan Navak is an old man and did not know how to use electric
\ncurrent and that certain witnesses of Dhanasahi stated before him that
\nthe accused Bapi Navak (O.P.2) son of the petitioner Sundarmohan Navk
\nbeing a voung man had taken the electric current un-authorisedlv from
\nthe L.I.Point of one Pravat Kumar Acharva to his house through open G.I.
\nWire and bamboo pillars and such open G.I. wire came in Contact With the
\nwet ‘Ganthas’ (blankets) which the deceased was carrying for washing the
\nsame in the village pond resulting her death”. It is most important to note
\nhere that, none of the so called witnesses (witnesses of village Dhanasahi)
\nhave been shown as charge sheet witnesses and yet, the 1.0. submitted,
\ncharge sheet not against the present petitioner Sundarmohan Nayk but
\nagainst Bapi Nayak (O.P.2) that too without even bothering to record the
\nstatement of the present petitioner Sundamohan Nayak, who was the sole
\naccused named in the F.l.R.\n<\/p>\n
8.  P.VV. 2 Mali Singh (husband or the informant P.W.3 Saraswati
\nSingh, informant), P.W.5 Kumari Mina Singh daughter of the informant
\nand eye–Witness have categorically stated in their evidence that the
\ndeceased Chandramani Singh had died after coming in contact with the<\/p>\n
open live G.I. wire taken by Sundarmohan Nayak (petitioner) from the<\/p>\n
‘  L.l.point to his house at a low “height unauthorizedly, and the deceased as  .. If g<\/p>\n
accidentally came in Contact with the same and died at the spot. P.W.5<\/p>\n
\ufb01fteen years old daughter of the informant Kumari Mina Singh as an eye
\nwitness has stated in her evidence that she along with her younger
\nbrother Chiku Singh were [present at the spot during the occurrence and
\nthe wire was a live open electric G.I. wire which was connected from the
\nL.I. point up to the house of Sundarmohan Nayak and although she along
\nwith her brother had tried to save life of her grandmother (deceased),
\nsome co-villagers apprehending danger to their lives dissuaded them from
\ngoing near their grand–mother and disconnected the live G.I. wire from
\nthe L.I. point.\n<\/p>\n
9. The learned C.J.M. placed reliance on the aforesaid evidence
\nand came to a conclusion that compelling circumstances exist for adding
\nSundarmohan Nayak as an accused in the pending trial and accordingly
\ndecided to invoke his power under Section 319, Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
10. Now I come to deal with the citations relied on by the
\npetitioner. In the case of Brindaban Das & Ors. (Supra) the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court laid down the principle that “the use of discretionary
\npower vested in Section 319, Cr.P.C. and the exercise thereof has to be
\nconsidered on its own set of facts and circumstances. In the matters
\nrelating invocation of powers under Section 319, the Court is not merely
\nrequired to take note of the fact that the name of a person who has not
\nbeen named as an accused in the F.I.R. has surfaced during the trial, but
\nthe Court is also required to consider whether such evidence would be
\nsufficient to convict the person being summoned. Since the issuance of
\nsummons underSection if  aide novo trial a  1
\nnumber of witnesses may have been examined and their re–examination
\ncould prejudice the prosecution and delay the trial, the trial court has to
\nexercise such discretion with great care and perspicacity.”\n<\/p>\n
After having reiterated the aforesaid principle the I-Ion’ble<\/p>\n
—- Supreme Court went on towvconsider ‘t’the\u00bbquality of the evidence saddutcedm —\n<\/p>\n
by the prosecution so far as the newly added accused is concerned and<\/p>\n
came to a View that it was difficult to hold with any amount of certainty
\nthat the same would in all probability secure conviction against the
\nappellant.”\n<\/p>\n
11. In the facts of the present case and the evidence adduced by
\nthe prosecution, the present petitioner, namely, Sundarmohan Nayak had
\nbeen named in the F.I.R. itself. It is not that the present petitioner against
\nWhom the C.J.M. has exercised power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was
\nnamed only in the evidence of the witnesses. The petitioner in this case
\nwas named as the only accused in the F.I.R.\n<\/p>\n
12. The next case relied upon by the petitioner is the case of
\nSarabiit Singh 85 Anr. (supra). In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court
\nreiterated the principle under Section 319, Cr.P.C. and held that, “a
\nstringent test has to be applied before exercising extraordinary
\njurisdiction under Section 319, Cr.P.C. and the mere existence of a prima
\nfacie case would not serve the purpose. Adequate evidence should be
\navailable on record which would reasonablv lead to conviction of that
\nperson sought to be summoned and therefore a higher standard should
\nbe adopted than required for taking cognizance or framing of charge.\n<\/p>\n
In the aforesaid case the investigating of\ufb01cer upon completion
\nof investigation had submitted charge sheet only against ten persons and
\nfiled \ufb01nal report against the appellants therein. The Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt in the aforesaid judgment after dealing with the various judgments<\/p>\n
rendered by it Court came to hold that, Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. can be<\/p>\n
I exercised\ufb02onlv on the basis of the fresh evidencewbroughtjbeforeit” and not<\/p>\n
on the basis of material which has been collected during the investigation,
\nparticularly when a \ufb01nal form was submitted and the same had been<\/p>\n
accepted by the Magistrate concerned against the appellants therein.\n<\/p>\n
13.. In the present case at hand, even though the present<\/p>\n
petitioner ‘Sundarmohan Nayak had been named in the F..I.R. as the only  .2 .\n<\/p>\n
accused, the I.O. P.W.1O in hisevidence, stated that since the petitioner<\/p>\n
is an old man and does not know how to use the electric current and that
\n“witnesses of village Dhanasahi” have stated before him, that the accused
\nBapi Nayak, son of the petitioner had taken the electricity unauthorisedly
\nfrom the L.I. point of another person to his house which had resulted
\nelectrocution of the deceased Chandramani Singh. As has been noted
\nherein above, none of the so called “witnesses of village Dhanasahi”, who
\nclaim to have stated before the I.O. that, it was accused Bapi Naik (O.P.2)
\nand not Sundarmohan Nayak (petitioner) named in the F.I.R., who had
\ntaken illegal electric connection, have been examined as charge sheet
\nwitnesses. What is even more shocking to take note of is the fact that the
\nI.O. did not even record the statement of the present petitioner although
\nhe had been named as the only accused in the F.I.R.\n<\/p>\n
The present case is clearly a case where the investigating
\nof\ufb01cer has, for reasons best to known to him, failed to discharge his duty
\nas an impartial investigator and has proceeded against one Bapi Nayak,
\neven though the said Bapi Nayak was not named in the F.I.R., nor any
\nevidence was laid before him to exclude the present petitioner from the
\ncharge sheet. His entire endeavor appears to have been to keep
\nSundarmohan Nayk outside the scope of prosecution. More importantly,
\neven though the petitioner was the only accused named in the F.I.R. while
\nfiling the Charge sheet against Bapi Nayak, no final report against the
\npetitioner was ever filed by the I.O. In my humble opinion the facts of the<\/p>\n
present case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the cases that<\/p>\n
iarose\ufb02for consideration before the  SlupreIneCourt  [therefore<\/p>\n
can provide no assistance to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
14. V Apart from the aforesaid two citations, learned counsel for the
\npetitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court, in the case<\/p>\n
of Ramakanta Behera @ Sahu 85 Ors (supra). In the fact of the said case,<\/p>\n
— this Court came to .a conclusion that the power should not .be_exercised___  ..  –\n<\/p>\n
mechanically only on the ground that some evidence has come on record<\/p>\n
against the person who is not facing trial and such jurisdiction should be
\nexercised very sparingly if compelling reasons exist. In the said case the
\nthis Court took note of the fact that even though the petitioners were
\nnamed in the F.I.R. as accused persons, however since the materials
\ncollected in course of investigation did not indicate their complicity in the
\ncommission of alleged offences, it is not disputed that dying declaration of
\nthe deceased made before witnesses as well as recorded by the
\ninvestigating police officer and the Magistrate do not at all implicate the
\npetitioners with commission of alleged offences. Therefore, it was held<\/p>\n
that trial court proceeded mechanically to exercise the jurisdiction under<\/p>\n
Section 319, Cr.P.C. . .\n<\/p>\n
15. It would be relevant to take note of the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh and another v. of
\nState of Punjah and another reported in AIR 1979 SC 339 while
\ndealing with the scope and ambit of section 319, Cr.P.C. the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court observed in paras-6 & 9, which read as thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“6. A plain reading of Section 319(1), Cr.P.C. which
\noccurs in chapter XXIV dealing with general provisions as
\nto inquiries and trials, clearly shows that it applies to all
\nthe Courts including a Sessions Court and such a Sessions
\nCourt will have the power to add any person, not being the
\naccused before it, but against whom there appears during
\ntrial suf\ufb01cient evidence indicating his involvement in the
\noffence, as an accused and direct him to be tried along with
\nthe other accused… ..”\n<\/p>\n
“9. As regards the contention that the phrase ” any
\nperson not be”ir”1ig”the accu’sed”” occurring in S. 319 excludes ‘
\nfrom its operation\u00bb an accused who has been released by
\nthe police under Section 169 of the Code and has been
\nshown in column No.2 of the charge sheet, the contention
\nhas merely to be stated to be rejected. The said expression
\nclearly covers any person who is not being tried already by
\nthe Court and the very purpose of enacting such a _
\nprovision like Sec. 319(1) clearly shows that even persons
\nwho have been dropped by the police -during vinvestigation~–~–rr~
\nbut against whom evidence showing their involvement in<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
the offence comes before the Criminal Court are included in
\nthe said expression.”\n<\/p>\n
16. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram
\nKishan Rohtagi and others<\/a> reported (1983) 1 SCC 1 the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in the case of<\/p>\n
Joginder Singh and another (supra) and observed in para–l9, which<\/p>\n
reads as fol1ows:-\n<\/p>\n
“In these circumstances, therefore, if the prosecution can
\nat any stage produce evidence which satis\ufb01es the court
\nthat the other accused or those who have not been arrayed
\nas accused against whom proceedings have been quashed
\nhave also committed the offence the Court can take
\ncognizance against them and try them along with other
\naccused. But, we would hasten to add that this is really an
\nextraordinary power which is conferred on the court and
\nshould be used very sparingly and only if compelling
\nreasons exist for taking cognizance against the other
\nperson against whom action has not been taken. More than
\nthis We would not like to say anything further at this stage.
\nWe leave the entire matter to the discretion of the court
\nconcerned so that it may act according to law. We would,
\nhowever, make it plain that the mere fact .that the
\nproceedings have been quashed against respondent 2 to 5
\nwill not prevent the court from exercising its discretion if it
\nis fully satis\ufb01ed that a case for taking cognizance against
\nthem has been made out on the additional evidence led<\/p>\n
before it.”\n<\/p>\n
17. The case of Joginder Singh and another (supra) and the case<\/p>\n
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) are relied upon by the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
 Supreme Court in the case of Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir & Ors. V.\n<\/p>\n
State of Bihar and anr. reported in AIR 2008 SC 95 where the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
A Supreme Court has observed in para-13, which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“13. On a careful reading Sectopm 319 of the Code as well
\nas the aforesaid two decisions it becomes clear_ that the
\ntrial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person<\/p>\n
~~~~~~–~ not being the accused before it to face the trial along  ~ A –  —- — a<\/p>\n
other accused persons, if the court is satis\ufb01ed at any stage<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
of the proceeding on the evidence adduced that the person
\nwho have not been arrayed as accused should face the
\ntrial. It is further evident that such person even though
\nhad initially been named in the F.I.R. as an accused, but
\nnot charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial. The
\ntrial court can take such a step to add such person as
\naccused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it
\nand not on the basis of materials available in the charge
\nsheet or the case diary, because such materials contained
\nin the charge sheet or the case diary because such
\nmaterials contained in the charge sheet or the case diary
\ndo not constitute evidence.”\n<\/p>\n
18. In the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
\npetitioner that the similar evidence which was available to the trial
\ncourt, at the time of passing the impugned order, was also available to it
\nat the time of taking cognizance, is Wholly baseless. At the stage of
\ntaking cognizance the only material available before the trial court was
\nthe charge sheet or the case diary and such material is not evidence. It
\nis only basing upon the evidence which is rendered in course of trial,
\nthe trial court may, in its considered view, seek to direct addition of a
\nperson as an accused, which includes, a person, who had been named
\nin the F.I.R. but not charge sheeted.\n<\/p>\n
In the present case the trial court has relied upon the
\nevidence given before it, in course of the trial against O.P.2 and on<\/p>\n
consideration of the same, has sought to pass the impugned order by<\/p>\n
“e”xercis’i’ng”its power und\u00e9rsection 319, iCir”.P.Cito’implea’d’the petitionier” t’ at **<\/p>\n
as an accused and therefore, in my earnest view, the contentions
\nadvanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
19. In the present case all the witnesses including the eye-\n<\/p>\n
witness, as well as the F.I.R., the present petitioner has been named as<\/p>\n
“sole accused and the evidence of (I.O.), clearly indicates tljiat he <\/p>\n
had not even bothered to record the statement of the present petitioner<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
and instead has proceeded against Bapi Nayak(O.P.2) son of the present
\npetitioner, allegedly based on the evidence of certain witnesses, whom he
\nhas not even cited as charge sheet witnesses. Therefore I am of the
\nconsidered view that learned C.J.M. in the present circumstances has
\ncorrectly exercised his jurisdiction under Section 319, Cr.P.C. On a
\nreading of the evidence of P.Ws. 2,3 and 5, it is clear that substantial
\nevidence exists, which could reasonably indicate abut involvement of the
\npetitioner. Therefore, I \ufb01nd no merit in the present application, which<\/p>\n
stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Interim order dated 4.9.2009 passed in Misc. Case No.l92l<\/p>\n
ij<\/p>\n
of 2009 stands vacated. . I  e
\n ‘Matxam\/E; I’?\n<\/p>\n
‘Twat <\/p>\n
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
\n24th November,2009 \/AKD<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court Sundarmohan N Ayak vs State Of Orissa & Another …. .. V … on 24 November, 2009 HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK CRLMC No.2457 of 2009 From an order dated 23.7.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in G.R. Case No. 530 of 2002 ‘ Sundarmohan N ayak …. .. […]<\/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-228850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-orissa-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSundarmohan N Ayak vs State Of Orissa & Another .... .. V ... on 24 November, 2009 - 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\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sundarmohan N Ayak vs State Of Orissa & Another .... .. V ... on 24 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-05T10:18:03+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sundarmohan N Ayak vs State Of Orissa & Another …. .. V … on 24 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-05T10:18:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3827,\"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\\\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Sundarmohan N Ayak vs State Of Orissa & Another .... .. V ... on 24 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-05T10:18:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sundarmohan N Ayak vs State Of Orissa & Another …. .. V … on 24 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Sundarmohan N Ayak vs State Of Orissa & Another .... .. V ... on 24 November, 2009 - 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\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sundarmohan N Ayak vs State Of Orissa & Another .... .. V ... on 24 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-05T10:18:03+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sundarmohan N Ayak vs State Of Orissa & Another …. .. V … on 24 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-05T10:18:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009"},"wordCount":3827,"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\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009","name":"Sundarmohan N Ayak vs State Of Orissa & Another .... .. V ... on 24 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-05T10:18:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundarmohan-n-ayak-vs-state-of-orissa-another-v-on-24-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sundarmohan N Ayak vs State Of Orissa & Another …. .. V … on 24 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/228850","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=228850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}