UTKAL UNIVERSITY CODE NO.

VANI VIHAR, BHUBANESWAR, ODISHA (FOR OFFICE USE)

NAME OF THE EXAMINATION- 10th SEM
FIVE YEAR INTEGRATED B.A., LLB, (HON’S) ROLL NUMBER: 100206CT13052
SUBJECT- INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE & REGD. NO. :776/13
INTERNSHIP
YEAR-2018 DATE: 12.5.2017
PAPER-X SUBJECT: INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE &
INTERNSHIP
DATE -12.5.2017 PAPER:X
CODE NO.
(FOR OFFICE USE)

SIGNATURE OF THE CENTRE SUPDT. SIGNATURE OF THE LAWYER UNDER WHOSE

GUIDE WORK IS DONE
CLASSIFICATION OF MARKS

NO. SUBJECT PAGE FULL MARKS MARKS SECURED

1. TRIAL COURT ATTENDANCE FROM TO
(CASE OBSERVATION)

(i)CIVIL CASE 15
(ii)CRIMINAL CASE 15
2. INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE 10
(INTERVIEW TO THE CLIENT
BY THE ADVOCATE)
3. PRE TRIAL PREPARATION 10
(PREPARATION OF
DOCUMENTS AND COURT
PAPERS)
GRAND TOTAL 50

SIGNATURE OF THE EXAMINER

 TRIAL COURT ATTENDANCE

CIVIL CASES

Case No. – 1

Date and Time of Court visit : 16.01.2018, 11.30 A.M

Place : Cuttack.

Name of the Court : Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Second Court,

Cuttack.

Name of the Judge : Rabindranath Behera, OJS

Case No. : Election Misc. Case No. 02/2017.

Area : Civil

Name of the Parties : Prabodha Kumar Patra Vrs. BDO,

Nischintakoili Panchayat Samiti, Cuttack and Others.

Statutes Involved : Orissa Gramapanchayat Act, 1964.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Brief Proceeding in the Court : Advocate for both the parties were present
and filed Haziras. During my Court visit the petitioner No. 3 filed an affidavit
under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC. The Opposite Party filed time petition to adjourn
the case for filing of written objection on behalf of Defendant No. 1. The
Hon’ble Judge heard on the petition of Opposite Party for granting of time was
allowed. The Petition was adjourned to 20.03.2018 for filing of written
objection.
Brief fact of the Case : The Election Petition filed by the petitioner to
declare the Opposite Party No. 2 as illegal and void as Sarpanch of Uttarkula
Grama Panchayat under Nischintakoili Panchayat Samiti and to declare the
petitioner as duly and validly elected sarpanch of Uttarkul Grama Panchayat
under Section 34 of Orissa Gramapanchayat Act, 1964.

Case No. – 2

Date and Time of Court visit : 06.02.2018, 11 A.M

Place : Cuttack.

Name of the Court : Civil Judge (Sr. Division), First Court,

Cuttack.

Name of the Judge : Sitikantha Pradhan, OJS

Case No. : C.S (III) No. 136/2006

Area : Civil

Name of the Parties : Director, Printing Stationary and

Publication, Odisha Vrs. Shri Raman Malhotra.

Statutes Involved : Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and

Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Brief Proceeding in the Court : During my Court visit one Sri Baidyanath
Majhi submitted his self sworn affidavit i.e. examination in Chief as provided
under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC. Ld. Advocate for the defendant prayed for
adjourned to cross-examine the witnesses. The petition was allowed and
posted to next date for cross-examination.
Brief fact of the Case : The defendant has purchased 31.470 Kgs. of
waste papers @ 451.51 per quintal amounting to Rs. 1, 42, 090/- (Rupees One
Lakh Forty Two Thousand and Ninety) only and cost towards OST @ 12%
amounting to Rs. 17,050.80/- or to say Rs. 1, 59, 141/- out of which the
defendant has paid only Rs. 94,612/- (Rupees Ninety Four Thousand Six
Hundred and Twelve) only leaving a balance of Rs. 64, 529/-. As the defendant
has not paid the outstanding dues i.e. 64,529/- in spite of several official letters
and oral demand of the plaintiff he is liable to pay the same with interest from
the date of institution of the suit. The Plaintiff take the shelter of the Court and
prays that let a decree be passed against the defendant for recovery of Rs.
64,529/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the sate of institution of the suit
till recovery.

Case No. – 3

Date and Time of Court visit : 13.02.2018, 11.30 A.M

Place : Cuttack.

Name of the Court : Civil Judge (Sr. Division), First Court,

Cuttack.

Name of the Judge : Sitikantha Pradhan, OJS

Case No. : C.S No. 541/2015

Area : Civil

Name of the Parties : Sd. Rasid Sha Vrs. State of Odisha.

Statutes Involved : Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and

Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Brief Proceeding in the Court : During my Court visit the Plaintiff filed a
plaint under Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC. Ld. Advocate for the defendant prayed for
adjourned to file objection. The petition was allowed and posted to next date
for objection and hearing.

Brief fact of the Case : The suit is filed by the Plaintiff for
declaration of right, title, interest and for adverse possession against the
Government that the Plaintiff has a good title of adverse possession in respect
of the suit land against the Government of Odisha for which he is entitled for.

Case No. – 4

Date and Time of Court visit : 21.02.2018, 12.30 A.M

Place : Cuttack.

Name of the Court : Civil Judge (Sr. Division), First Court,

Cuttack.

Name of the Judge : Sitikantha Pradhan, OJS

Case No. : Election Misc. Case No. 06/2017.

Area : Civil

Name of the Parties : Smt. Kalpana Chattar Vrs. Smt. Santipriya

Mohanty.

Statutes Involved : Orissa Gramapanchayat Act, 1964.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Brief Proceeding in the Court : Advocate for both the parties were present
and filed Haziras. During my Court visit the petitioner filed a petition under
Section 30 and 31 of Orissa Gramapanchayat Act, 1964. The Opposite Party
filed time petition to adjourn the case for filing of objection. The Hon’ble Judge
heard on the petition from the petitioner. Petition of Opposite Party was
allowed. The Petition was adjourned to 27.03.2018 for objection and hearing.

Brief fact of the Case : The suit is filed by the Plaintiff for Direct
recounting/re-inspection of the ballot papers of the election to the office of
Sarpanch of Kakhadi Gram Panchayat and to declare the election as illegal and
to declare the petitioner as Elected Candidate.

Case No. – 5

Date and Time of Court visit : 26.02.2018, 12.30 A.M

Place : Cuttack.

Name of the Court : Civil Judge (Sr. Division), First Court, Cuttack

Name of the Judge : Sitikantha Pradhan, OJS

Case No. : C.S No. 520/2016

Area : Civil

Name of the Parties : Jenamani Muduli & Others Vrs. Collector,

Cuttack.

Statutes Involved : Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Brief Proceeding in the Court : Advocate for both the parties were present
and filed Haziras. During my Court visit the Opposite Party filed questionnaires.
Advocate for the petitioner filed a petition for time. The Hon’ble Judge heard
on the petition from the learned counsels for both the parties. Petition was
allowed. Suit was adjourned to 29.03.2018.
Brief fact of the Case : The suit is filed by the Plaintiff for permanent
injunction against the defendants including the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack with
a further prayer in the said suit not to alienate the Scheduled property and not
to disturb the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs.
CRIMINAL CASES

Criminal Case – 1

Date and Time of Court visit : 16.01.2018, 11.30 A.M

Place : Cuttack.

Name of the Court : 1st Addl. Sessions Court, Cuttack.

Case No. : S.T Case No. 41/2014

Area : Criminal

Name of the Parties : State Vrs. Micky @ Priya Ranjan Mohanty

and
Another.

Laws and Sections Involved : 302/120-B/201 of IPC.

Name of the Complainant : Sukanta Kumar Jena.

Name of the Deceased : Anupama Behera.

Name of the Accused : Micky @ Priya Ranjan Mohanty and Jyoti

Ranjan
Mohanty.

Date and Place of Occurrence : In the night of 14th of March, 2013 Inside
the Residence of the deceased at Balasore.

Brief Proceeding in the Court : During my Court visit the Defence examined
one defence witness as D.W 1 namely Biswaranjan Mahakud, brother of the
accused as per Section 233 of Cr. P.C. After that the Public Prosecutor cross-
examined the said defence witness under Section 137 of Indian Evidence Act.
After that Advocate for the accused filed a memo declining other witnesses to
be examined. Accordingly the case was adjourned to another date for
argument.

Brief fact of the Case : On 15.03.2013 night at about 11 P.M at the

Government residential quarter of the deceased who working as an Judicial
Officer at Balasore was lying dead and was brutally killed by some unknown
culprits. On 16.03.2013 at 8.05 A.M complainant Sukanta Kumar Jena after
getting information from Superintendent of Police, Balasore presented a
written allegation regarding the death of his wife Anupama Behera at
Sahadevakhunta P.S. During the course of investigation the I.O examined the
Complainant and other witnesses. Visited the Spot, conducted inquest over the
dead body and sent the dead body for autopsy to DHH, Balasore. The
bloodstained bed sheets, pillow and wearing apparels of both deceased and
accused Priya Ranajan were seized and send to SFSL, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar.
From investigation it was found that accused Priya Ranajn along with his
brother Jyoti Ranjan entered into the house of the deceased on 14.03.2013
night and committed murder of the deceased to eliminate her for ever. While
escaping accused persons took away mobile phone of the deceased. From the
location of the mobile phone the presence of both the accused persons were
proved that they were at Balasore at that night. Finger Prints of Priya Ranjan
which were found from the place of the occurrence sent to Finger Print
Bureau, Bhubaneswar for opinion.

As prima facie evidence has been well established against the accused
persons Micky @ Priya Ranjan Mohanty and Jyoti Ranjan Mohanty, the I.O
submitted Charge Sheet under Section 302/120-B/201 of IPC to face his trial in
the Court of law.
Criminal Case – 2

Date and Time of Court visit : 03.02.2018, 11.30 A.M

Place : Cuttack.

Name of the Court : SDJM (S) Court, Cuttack.

Case No. : 2 (a) C.C No. 02/2017

Area : Criminal

Name of the Parties : State Vrs. Muna Behera.

Laws and Sections Involved : 47 (a) of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act.

Name of the Complainant : Samir Kumar Mohanty.

Name of the Accused : Muna Behera.

Date and Place of Occurrence : 05.01.2017, 8.30 A.M.

Brief Proceeding in the Court : During my Court visit the I.O Samir Kumar
Mohanty was examined in chief by the Prosecution. Exhibited the seizure list,
other relevant documents and articles. He was cross-examined by the defence.

Brief fact of the Case : On 05.01.2017 at about 08.30 A.M while the
excise officials were performing patrolling duty in Khan Nagar area, accused
Muna Behera was carrying a white colour jari bag in a suspicious manner. On
suspicion the I.O detained him on the spot, searched the accused person and
recovered twelve numbers of Aska 40 C.S Liquor bottles each containing 200
ml. After conducting smell test and blue litmus paper test found to know that it
was C.S liquor. On being asked accused failed to furnish any valid license
regarding such possession of liquor. Then the I.O seized all the bottles from the
possession of the accused and prepared a seizure list at the spot in presence of
the independent witnesses. After obtained the signature of the accused
handed over one copy of seizure list to the accused and forwarded him to the
Court on the same day. On 30.01.2017 after completion of investigation I.O
submitted PR against the accused person under Section 47 (a) of Bihar and
Orissa Excise Act.

Criminal Case – 3

Date and Time of Court visit : 21.02.2018, 11 A.M

Place : Cuttack.

Name of the Court : Sessions Court, Cuttack.

Case No. : S.T Case No. 504/2013

Area : Criminal

Name of the Parties : State Vrs. Bhaskar Nayak.

Laws and Sections Involved : 302 of IPC.

Name of the Complainant : Rama Chandra Pani.

Name of the Deceased : Prafulla Chandra Pani.

Name of the Accused : Bhaskar Nayak.

Date and Place of Occurrence : In the night of 22/23 of April, 2013 Inside

the Hotel of the Deceased situated at

Matajagapura.

Brief Proceeding in the Court : During my Court visit the Defence examined
one defence witness as D.W 1 as per Section 233 of Cr. P.C. During his
examination he has stated that the police has never arrested the accused in his
village and has never made any disclosure statement with regard to leading to
discovery. After that the Public Prosecutor cross-examined the said defence
witness under Section 137 of Indian Evidence Act. After that Advocate for the
accused filed a memo declining other witnesses to be examined. Accordingly
the case was adjourned to 12.03.2018 for argument.

Brief fact of the Case : On 23.04.2013 at 8.30 A.M the complainant

Rama Chandra Pani of Matagajapur appeared before the Madhupatna P.S and
presented a written report alleging therein that his father Prafulla Chandra
Pani had a hotel at Matagajapur and on 22.04.2013 at about 9.30 P.M his
father had been to his hotel to sleep. On that night some unknown person
entered into the Hotel from back side by breaking open the Gate and
committed murder by means of wood, stick, brick and scissor. After registering
the FIR under Section 302 of IPC investigation was started and during the
course of investigation complainant as well as witnesses were examined, spot
was visited, services from scientific team and detective dog has been utilized,
collected material evidences from the spot, hold inquest over the dead body,
sent for Post Mortem Examination, seized the weapon of offence and wearing
apparels of the deceased also seized after post mortem examination, arrested
the accused, wearing apparels of the accused also seized, one Mobile Phone
and one Inverter was also seized from the possession of the accused. The
wearing apparels of both the deceased and the accused were sent to SFSL,
Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar for Chemical Examination and opinion.

As prima facie evidence has been well established against the accused
person Bhaskar Nayak, the I.O submitted Charge Sheet under Section 302 of
IPC to face his trial in the Court of law.

Criminal Case – 4

Date and Time of Court visit : 22.02.2018, 11.30 A.M

Place : Cuttack.

Name of the Court : Ms. Varsha Sharma, JMFC Court, Cuttack.

Case No. : G.R Case No. 428/2016

Area : Criminal

Name of the Parties : State Vrs. Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta and

others.

Laws and Sections Involved : 386/34 of IPC.

Name of the Complainant : Balaram Sahu.

Name of the Accused : Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta, Sushil Kumar

Dhalasamanta, Bholanath Bhagat.

Date and Place of Occurrence : 11.03.2016, Badambadi.

Brief Proceeding in the Court : During my Court visit the prosecution

examined in Chief Arabinda Kumar Singh as P.W 6 who corroborated the
prosecution story. He was cross-examined by the defence. The case was
posted to 04.03.2018 for evidence.

Brief fact of the Case : On 11.03.2016 at 9.45 P.M complainant

Balaram Sahu reported that being the Director of BBG Metal Syndicate since
2011, he was supplying labour and transportation facility to Ramkey Company
for garbage disposal, which was entered into a contract with Cuttack Municipal
Corporation. Accused Bholanath Bhagat along with Susanta Kumar
Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar Dhalasamanta used to collect Rupees 2 to 3
Lakhs per month forcibly as Dada Bati from the BBG Metal Syndicate. On
refusal to give Dada Bati earlier many times these accused persons threatened
to kill and obstructed their work on different occasions. Being afraid of their
threatening Dada Bati was given to them regularly. During investigation I.O
examined the complainant and other witnesses, visited the spot, seized the
connected documents.
As prima facie evidence has been well established against the accused
persons the I.O submitted Charge Sheet under Section 386/34 of IPC to face
their trial in the Court of law.
Criminal Case – 5

Date and Time of Court visit : 17.04.2018, 10.30 A.M

Place : Cuttack.

Name of the Court : Ms. Varsha Sharma, JMFC Court, Cuttack.

Case No. : G.R Case No. 253/2016

Area : Criminal

Name of the Parties : State Vrs. Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta and

another.

Laws and Sections Involved : 25 (1-B) of Arms Act.

Name of the Complainant : Ajay Kumar Das.

Name of the Accused : Sushanta Kumar Dhalasamanta, Sangram

Routray

Date and Place of Occurrence : 12.02.2016, 9.45 P.M at Gurudwar Chhak,

Sikharapur.

Brief Proceeding in the Court : During my Court visit the prosecution

examined in Chief one Surendra Kumar Das as P.W 1 who corroborated the
prosecution story. He was cross-examined by the defence. The case was
posted to 30.04.2018 for evidence.

Brief fact of the Case : On 12.02.2016 at 9.45 P.M complainant

Ajay Kumar Das reported that while conducting patrolling along with other
police personnel at Gurudwar Chhak, Sikharpur, he detained Sangram Routray
who was a suspect in Chauliaganj P.S Case No. 27/2016 and on being search he
recovered one 7.65 mm pistol along with 6 rounds of live ammunitions from
his possession. On being asked he stated that he had received the arms and
ammunitions from Sushanta Kumar Dhalasamanta. On demand he failed to
produce any license in support that arms and ammunitions. The Informant Sri
Ajay Kumar Das seized the said arms and ammunitions under proper seizure
list, registered the case and arrested the accused persons.
As prima facie evidence has been well established against the accused
persons the I.O submitted Charge Sheet under Section 25 (1-B) of Arms Act to
face their trial in the Court of law.
 INTERVIEW TECNIQUE

INTERVIEW TO THE CLIENT BY THE ADVOCATE

I am attached to the chamber of Mr. Akhaya Kumar Nayak

,senior advocate odisha high Court , cuttack. His chamber is situated at cda
sector 8, cuttack. The chamber is an established chamber with well maintained
library containing various law books and journals. Besides these journals and
books the chamber also has computers for Juniors and one for the advocate
himself. I had joined his chamber on 15th January 2018. He has seven
associates, besides them there are persons who working as advocate clerk,
typist and stenographer respectively. Besides all these , two peons are working
in this chamber in the said chamber. The above persons are very regular and
punctual in attending the chamber. They all are very particular in their work.
The associates are very sincere in attending chamber and cases as per the
assignment by the senior advocate. During my chamber visit, I came to learn
the interview technique between the client and advocate. Most of the clients
are very gentle , simple and trustworthy.

On 24th January 2018 at about 7pm, one Pratap Kumar Das

aged about 29 years of Tulsipur, cuttack came to the chamber of adv.
Mr.Nayak , paid him regards and sat in a front chair meant for the clients. Adv.
Mr. Nayak was minutely examine a case record. He closed the file and put his
eyes over the client. Thereafter, there was a discussion between the advocate
and client.

Client : Sir ! What is the date of my case?

Advocate : Your case is very stiff. Accusation made against you appears to
have been proved by the prosecution evidence.

Client : Then sir! What is the way out?

Advocate : We have to strategically set up the defence so as to make the
prosecution case doubtful.

Client : Doubtful means?

Advocate : There is a legal proposition. That once there is a reasonable doubt

regarding existence of the prosecution case (fact), benefit of doubt goes in
favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to acquittal.

Client : Please suggest what I can do in that regard?

Advocate : Can you give evidence in the court that at the relevant time of
alleged occurrence you were not present at the spot , but someone else.

Client : What would be the advantage?

Advocate : This kind of evidence or plea of the accused is called PLEA OF ALIBI
that means the accused not being present at the spot was not in a position to
commit an alleged offence.

Client : I recall that on the alleged date of occurrence I had been to the house
of my father- in- law along with my wife to attend marriage ceremony of my
sister-in-law. Of course , I returned back leaving my wife there.

Advocate : That will be our advantage . But strategically we shouldn’t reveal

your return.

Client : Sir ! Who will be the witness to prove it?

Advocate : It may be your wife or any of the family members of your in-law 's
house.

Client : Sir ! I don’t want that my involvement in a criminal charge is known to

the people of my in-laws house. Moreover , my wife is very innocent and she
has a phobia to appear in public. Besides them can anybody or even myself be
a witness?

Advocate : Oh ! Certainly. You yourself can be a witness for defence . But,

there is a pre condition provided u/s 315 of the CrPC. Under the said provision
you have to avail leave of the Court before adducing evidence as a defence
evidence.
Client : Okay. That is fine. I am radiant willing to be a defence witness for
myself. I am hopeful to win over the case as your defence strategy makes me
confident.

Advocate : Okay. Let us proceed ahead. Hopefully, we shall overcome.

Client : Thank you. Sir ! I am very grateful to you.

Advocate : Okay. Thank you.