Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 168 (ORI)

Chintamani Dyan Samantray v. Triguna Tito Deb

2007-03-13

R.N.BISWAL

body2007
ORDER 13.3.2007 — Even though the matter was listed to date for admission, on the request and consent of learned counsel for both parties, it is taken up for final disposal. Heard. In this CRLMC the petitioner, who is one of the accused in 1.C.C. No.3139 of 2005 pending before the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar challenges the order dated 29.7.2006 wherein the learned S.D.J.M., rejected the petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that earlier a similar petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner had already been rejected by the said Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the peti¬tioner is an ex-Speaker of Orissa Legislative Assembly and he being a political man remains busy in his constituency at Chiki¬ti. If he is asked to attend the Court regularly at Bhubaneswar, then he would face much inconvenience. Earlier he had filed a petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. which not being properly considered, was rejected even though the prayer of four co-ac¬cused persons was allowed. As per his submission, the finding of the Court below that once a petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. is rejected, subsequent similar petition cannot be entertained is per se illegal as held by this Court in the case of Debasis Samantaray v. State of Orissa and another; 2003 (II) OLR 219 . Perused the said judgment. At paragraph-7 of the judgment this Court held that even if an application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. had been rejected earlier, a similar petition can be filed at subsequent stage. So the finding of the learned trial Court as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the peti¬tioner is erroneous and as such, cannot stand. There is no dispute that the petitioner was ex-Speaker of Orissa Legislative Assembly. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 500,501(b) and 502 (b) of I.P.C. on the accusation that at his instance some defamatory matters were published in the daily “The Samaj” and “The Samaya”. Since the petitioner was the ex-Speaker of Orissa Legislative Assembly, his presence in the Court is not likely to be required for identifi¬cation. The major part of the evidence would consist of documen¬tary evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner would face much incon¬venience, if he is asked to attend the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhuba¬neswar coming from Chikiti on each date of posting. Since the petitioner was the ex-Speaker of Orissa Legislative Assembly, his presence in the Court is not likely to be required for identifi¬cation. The major part of the evidence would consist of documen¬tary evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner would face much incon¬venience, if he is asked to attend the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhuba¬neswar coming from Chikiti on each date of posting. Under such circumstances, the petition is allowed and the personal attendance of the accused-petitioner in the aforesaid case is dispensed with and he is permitted to appear before the Court by his lawyer. However, the accused-petitioner may be noticed to appear before the Court at any stage if it is so required.. Accordingly the CRLMC is disposed of. CRLMC disposed of.