The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.757 of 2025 Sukumar Baital State of Orissa -Versus- …. Petitioner Mr. S. Dwibedi, Advocate …. Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Sahoo. ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICER.K. PATTANAIK Order No. 01. 1.
Decision
ORDER 22.10.2025 Heard Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order as at Annexure-5 passed in connection with CRLMC No.90 of 2025 by the learned S.D.J.M (S), Cuttack arising out of G.R. Case No.176 of 2025, whereby, the order releasing the seized gold ornaments vide Annexure-3 in his favour was recalled. 3. Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner moved an application under Section 503 BNSS seeking release and interim custody of seizure articles and it was followed by an order dated 3rd September, 2025 at Annexure-3. The further submission is that later to the release order, the learned court below entertained an application as per Annexure-4 from one of the accused persons and considering the same, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-5 was passed recalling the same. The contention of Page 1 of 4 Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel is that the learned court below could not have recalled the order i.e. Annexure-3 as it has no jurisdiction. In that regard, while contending so, Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel cited the following decisions in Rukmini Prava Mohanty Vrs. State of Odisha (2010) 45 OCR 737 and Ramesh Chandra Jena Vrs. The State of Orissa and another (1992) 5 OCR 401. The submission is that the learned court below after the release order did not have any jurisdiction to review or recall it, hence, therefore, the impugned order dated 8th September, 2025 at Annexure-5 is liable to be interfered with and set aside. 4. Recorded the submission of Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State. 5. No notice is issued to the accused, namely, Satyanarayan Sahoo as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. 6. Perused the FIR as at Annexure-1. 7. The seizure of the gold ornaments has been made as per Annexure-2 series. Consequent upon such seizure, the petitioner approached the learned court below seeking interim custody of the gold ornaments and it was entertained and followed by the order at Annexure-3 but the same was recalled vide Annexure-5. Such an order recalling the earlier order has been on account of an application received from one of the accused persons named above. A copy of the said application is at Annexure-4 and the same is also perused. Page 2 of 4 8. In so far as, exercise of the jurisdiction of the learned court below in the above manner is concerned, the Court is in agreement with the submission of Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not possessed of to recall the release order i.e. Annexure-3. In Rukmini Prava Mohanty (supra), a similar view has been expressed by this Court, where, release order was in favour of the petitioner therein and subsequently by another order, the IIC of the concerned PS was directed to not comply the same and in that context, it was held and concluded that the subsequent order amounts to review of the earlier one which a Magistrate does not have the power and any such order would amount to abuse of process of the Court. In Ramesh Chandra Jena (supra), the Court held that any such final order cannot be reviewed. Law is well settled that a final order by a Magistrate cannot be recalled. Any such person aggrieved by a final order shall have to take recourse to and in the case at hand, the accused who made the application was required to file a revision against the order dated 3rd September, 2025 i.e. Annexure-3. Furthermore, the Court finds that the learned court below did not invite any such objection from the accused persons before considering the release of the gold ornaments in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-3. The petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the jewellery shop, from where, the gold ornaments had been removed by the accused persons and later seized in connection with the case. The release order at Annexure-3 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the gold ornaments is directed by the learned court below by imposing suitable conditions, which is most unlikely to defeat the Page 3 of 4 interest of anyone, who, in case is aggrieved, has the remedy to challenge the decision, which, however, cannot be set at naught by a recall. Having considered the facts pleaded on record and submissions of learned counsels for the respective parties and taking judicial notice of the settled legal position reaffirmed in the decisions (supra), the conclusion of the Court is that the order as at Annexure-5 cannot be sustained in law. The Court reiterates that any such order rightly or wrongly directing release of the seizure articles could not have been recalled as it does amount to review or recall of the order dated 3rd September, 2025 i.e. Annexure-3 and the same is not permissible under the law. That apart, it is not a case of fraud alleged against the petitioner, while questioning the release order i.e. Annexure-3. Having said that, the Court concludes that the impugned order as at Annexure-5 is liable to be set aside leaving it open for the aggrieved to avail appropriate remedy under law against the order i.e. Annexure-3 and accordingly, it is directed. 9. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 8th September, 2025 at Annexure-5 in CRLMC No.90 of 2025 by learned SDJM (S), Cuttack is hereby set aside however with the observation made herein above. 10. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 23-Oct-2025 11:06:12 Rojina (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Page 4 of 4