BASUDEV BHOI Vs. BIPADABHANJAN PUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of maintainability of an application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code'), after disposal of the revision at the level of the Sessions Judge has arisen again like a mythical phoenix and that being the preliminary objection by Shri Debasis Panda, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, it has to be dealt with before the petitioner is allowed to cross the threshold to advance his contentions in regard to the merits of the case.

(2.) The preliminary objection of Shri Panda is that challenging the order dated 26-7-1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhadrak, in ICC Case No. 60 of 1993 whereby he refused to entertain the application filed under S. 219 of the Code, the accused persons had preferred Criminal Revision No. 40 of 1994 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, and having lost in the said revision, they are debarred to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court as the application at their instance is not maintainable. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Dharampal v. Smt. Ramshri, AIR 1993 SC 1361 : (1993 Cri LJ 1049) and Deepti alias Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai, (1995) 5 SCC 751.

(3.) Before I proceed to deal with the contention raised by Shri Panda and the answer thereto by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri D. P. Dhal, it is relevant to state here that two applications were taken up together with regard to maintainability and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. In Criminal Misc. Case No. 1396 of 1994 (Panchanan Mohanty v. State of Orissa) disposed of by me today, Shri Samir Kumar Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner therein has advanced his arguments in regard to the maintainability of such an application.