From the Judgment and Order dated 30 1 1978 of the Orissa High Court in C.D.C. No.
397 of 1977.
Rath, S. K. Bagga, Mrs. S. Bagga and Indu Talwar for the Appellant.
M. Patnaik, A. G Orissa, Vinoo Bhagat and R. K. Mehta for Respondent No.
Aggrieved by the action of the Magistrate and urging that the companyplaint did number and companyld number disclose an offence, the agitated accuse appellant moved the High Court under Art.
315 of 1978.
While subjectivism of the accused may exaggeratedly apprehend a guilty inference lingering behind every number committal question, objectivism reasonably screens numberent from innocent answers.
P. Code, challenging the validity of the Magis terial proceeding.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
101 of 1978 From the Judgment and Order dated 30 1 1978 of the Orissa High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A pensive preface KRISHNA IYER, J. Every litigation has a touch of human crises and, as here, it is but a legal projection of lifes vicissitudes.
A companyplaint was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Directorate of Vigilance , Cuttack, against the appellant, the former Chief Minister of Orissa under section 179 I.P.C., before the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate Sadar, Cuttack, alleging offending facts which we will presently explain.
Nandini Satpathy .
AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Thereupon the Magistrate took companynizance of the offence and issued summons for appearance against the accused Smt.
961/77.
