ADITYA KUMAR MALLICK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Filing the Writ Petition challenge is made to the order at Annexure-1 solely on the premises of being ex parte in nature. There is no dispute between the parties that the case was finally heard on the date fixed i.e. on 6.8.2020 and neither of the parties appeared on the date fixed to attend the hearing proceeding involved herein.

(2.) Sri Arijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the impugned order alleges that adjudication of the matter was undertaken in a phased manner, inasmuch as, the prosecution witnesses were independently noticed to appear for leading their evidence in absence of notice to the owner and the owner is similarly independently noticed only after the completion of the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses to bring its witness for recording of evidence. Sri Mishra thus contended that there has been no fair recording of evidence of either party. It is also alleged that evidence of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded behind the back of the owner in absence of scope for cross-examination such evidence to be seriously affected in such proceeding. It is also alleged that there is no notice for appearance of the parties on the date of hearing besides there is also no opportunity of hearing. It is in this view of the matter, a claim is made by Sri Mishra for interfering in the order at Annexure-1 by setting aside the same remitting the matter for fresh disposal at least with opportunity of cross-examination to the owner involved herein with supply of copy of evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

(3.) Sri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State appearing here in an attempt to defend the impugned order submitted that even though on the date of hearing none appeared as disclosed from the impugned order but from the contents of the impugned order it appears on the date of examination of the prosecution witnesses, the owner did not appear. Further on being noticed, defence has also produced evidence, which has been taken note of in the final determination of the matter. It is in this view of the matter, Mr.Sahoo attempted to justify the impugned order at Annexure-1 and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.