KASINATH NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the instant writ appeal, filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in a writ petition in which direction for further investigation in a criminal case was sought for, maintainable? This is the short question required to be answered in the reference.

(2.) When the writ appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, the State Government raised serious objection regarding its maintainability. Feeling that the question of maintainability may have a far reaching effect, the Division Bench was inclined to examine the matter in depth and accordingly vide order dated 20.08.2014 appointed Mr. Goutam Mishra as amicus curiae to assist the Court. As the learned amicus curiae apprised the Court that there are divergent views by different High Courts on the issue, vide order dated 11.09.2014 the Division Bench of this Court referred the matter to the Full Bench. Hence, this Full Bench has been constituted and called upon to answer the following question:

(3.) While Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in a petition under Article 226, according to Mr. Misra, learned Advocate General appearing for the State an appeal under clause 10 of Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable against the judgment of learned Single Judge even when passed under Article 226, if the power is exercised under criminal jurisdiction.