KISHORE CHANDRA SATPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) ONE of the offence with which the Petitioner is involved is punishable under Section 307, Code of Criminal Procedure Inquiry report reveals that tile injured received one cut injury on the head which according to the doctor was simple in nature. It is stated by Sri S.K. Nayak, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel that there is allegation of theft of a motor cycle against the Petitioner. To ascertain the same. I have gone through the F.I.R. story wherein omnibus statement has been made that the motor cycle has been forcibly taken away by the accused persons. However, in subsequent statements during investigation he has specifically named the Petitioner and another to have committed the theft of the motor cycle.

(3.) TAKING all these aspects into consideration, I am of the opinion that Section 18 of the Act cannot detain the Court to exercise power under Section 438 , Code of Criminal Procedure reason being that if the prayer is refused, the Petitioner will have to surrender before the Magistrate, in seisin of the matter and the concerned Magistrate does not have jurisdiction to deal with such a case.