SATYABRATA MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short 'the Code') petitioner has assailed correctness of the order passed by the S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack on 22-11-96 in C.A. Case No. 1286 of 1995 (Annexure-7) purporting to be one under Section 348 of the Code and the dismissal of the appeal by the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, under Section 341 of the Code preferred by the petitioner in the Court of Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Appeal No. 163/96 vide the impugned judgment dated 6-12-96.

(2.) Petitioner is one of the accused persons in C. A. Case No. 1286 of 1995 and the offences alleged are under Sections 498-A, 406/34, I.P.C., and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the Court of S.D.J.M., he filed an application praying for action under Section 340 of the Code against the opposite parties 2 to 4 on the ground that at the time of hearing of his bail application filed and moved in the High Court under Section 418 of the Code, vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 1529 of 1998, while opposing that prayer for anticipatory bail, prosecution relied upon a letter and a postal envelope relating to ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to the opposite party No. 2. Petitioner contends that such letter and the envelope are fabricated one and used in a Judicial Proceeding and, therefore, action under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code be taken against the opposite parties 2 to 4. It is also stated by the petitioner that the said document was seized by the Investigating Officer on being produced by the opposite parties 2 to 4.

(3.) Learned S.D.J.M. rejected the petition as premature on the ground that trial of the case has not been taken-up and genuineness or fakeness of the said document should not be decided at this pre-trial stage, which would affect the trial of the case. He further observed that in course of the trial, if any material will be forthcoming justifying action as prayed for, then, the accused-petitioner is at liberty to file such petition for proper action in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by that order, petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 163/96 in accordance with the provision in Section 341 of the Code and at the stage of admission, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal concurring with the view of the S.D.J.M. Hence petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code.