CASE TITLE : CHHABILA NAYAK @ CHHABI VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.
CASE NO : BLAPL NO. 12411 of 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT : January 16, 2024

While hearing the BLAPL where the petitioner was alleged to have committed offences under Sections 363, 366, 294, 506, and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”), the Court dealt with the submission with regard to requirement of service of notice on the informant while dealing with BLAPLs involving offences under the POCSO Act. The Hon’ble Court for adjudication of the aforesaid issue, has taken note of the following provisions – Rules 4(13)/4(15) of the POCSO Rules, 2020, section 439 of the Cr.P.C, sections 376(3)/376AB/37DA/376DB of the IPC, and section 29 of the POCSO Act. The Hon’ble Court also referred to the Bombay High Court’s decision in the case of Arjun Kishanrao Malge vs. The State Of Maharashtra reported in 2021 SCC Online 551 and the Delhi High Court’s decision in of Miss G (Minor) v. State of NCT of Delhi : 2020 SCC OnLine Del 629 : (2020) 270 DLT 516.

The Court, after analysing the aforesaid provisions and judgments, has observed that the objectives of the POCSO Act and Rules can be better achieved if prior notice is issued to the informant/guardian of the victim at the stage of hearing bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. involving offence under the POCSO Act. The Hon’ble Court has opined that in a scenario where the learned Court is not inclined to allow the bail application, the issuance of notice to the victim/informant may not be necessary since the informant/victim would not be prejudiced if the prayer for bail is rejected. The prayer for bail of the accused should however not be allowed, without affording a chance of hearing to the victim/informant. The Court has further held that this interpretation according to the Court would be in consonance with object of Section 40 of POCSO Act, Rules 4(13) & 4(15) of POCSO Rules, and the spirit of Section 439 (1A) Cr.P.C. Ultimately, with the aforesaid observations, the Hon’ble directed the matter to be listed before the appropriate assigned bench for disposal.

CASE TITLE : SMT. SMITARANI MOHANTY VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.
CASE NO : W.A. NO. 1935 OF 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : September 18, 2024
CORAM : The Chief Justice, Justice Savitri Ratho

The Appellant (the Chairperson) of the Municipal Council was aggrieved by the direction of the Single Judge to the authorities to convene a fresh meeting of the Phulbani Municipal Council (“Council”) for voting on a no-confidence motion against her, on the ground of violation of provisions of the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950 (“the Act”).

The Court examined the proviso (ii) to Section 54 (1) of the Act and observed that the aforesaid provision contains an embargo for holding a meeting for recording a want of confidence in the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson, only once during a calendar year. As the interim order passed in the writ petition, continued till final disposal of the writ, no meeting on the proposed ‘No Confidence Motion’ had been held. Therefore, the Court held that the question of moving the resolution more than once during a calendar year did not arise, as in effect the resolution had not been moved till date. Therefore, the Appellant’s contention was held to be devoid of merit and the Writ Appeal was dismissed.