The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 (From the judgments dated 12th April, 2002 passed by learned Special Judge (C.B.I), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Nos.14/10 of 99/90, 12/8 of 99/90, 13/9 of 99/90, 11/2 of 99/90, 16/12 of 99/90 & 15/11 of 99/90.) Binod Bihari Patnaik …. Appellant in all cases -versus- Republic of India …. Respondent in all cases Advocate(s) appeared in all the cases:- For Appellant : Mr. Manas Chand, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Counsel for CBI CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 26th June, 2023 B.P. Routray, J. 1. All the appeals concerning the same First Information Report, but split in six trials are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The Appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year along with fine of Rs.5000/- in each trial for commission CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 1 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 of offences under Sections 468/471 of I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by learned Special Judge (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Nos.14/10 of 99/90, 12/8 of 99/90, 13/9 of 99/90, 11/2 of 99/90, 16/12 of 99/90 & 15/11 of 99/90. The Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence in these appeals. 2. The Appellant was working as Inspector-cum-Development Officer in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, Berhampur Branch during the year 1981 to 1986. As per prosecution case, the Appellant obtained signatures of Miss Gitamayee Das (a prosecution witness) of Bhanjanagar and neighbour of the Appellant in two application forms for appointing her as an Insurance Agent of Oriental
Legal Reasoning
Fire and General Insurance Company. The Appellant filled in those application forms in his own handwriting and submitted the same to the Divisional Office, Cuttack on 3rd August 1981 along with his recommendation, and based on these applications and recommendations of the Appellant, the Division Office issued appointment letter in favour of Miss Gitamayee Das to act as the licenced agent of the Insurance Company for the period from 8th September 1981 to 30th August, 1984. The Appellant received the CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 2 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 appointment letter of Miss Gitamayee Das from the Divisional Office and without intimating her about her appointment as the Insurance Agent he himself did insurance business in the name of Gitamayee and received the commission cheques from the Division Office. The Appellant also opened Savings Bank Account No.282 in Indian Overseas Bank, Mujagarh Branch in the name of Gitamayee without her knowledge and operated the bank account by depositing agent commission cheques of Gitamayee received by him and withdrew money by presenting withdrawal cheques in the name of Gitamayee. During the relevant period, from 1981 to 1986, the Appellant undertook several insurance business in the name of Gitamayee putting her agent code number (3570/16/487) on the proposal forms and submitted commission vouchers forging signatures of Gitamayee and received twenty six commission cheques for different amounts from the period from 1981 to 1986, with details as follows:- Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 Cheque No. Amount 007134 007191 000603 002354 300.00 350.30 1656.10 320.25 Date of presentation in I.O.B, Mujaguda. 24.10.81 16.11.81 30.1.82 19.6.82 CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 3 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 002391 003761 004317 572073 574246 575980 575983 577361 579547 579589 886178 863298 853238 853268 853357 853457 844141 843564 843631 843776 627442 627511 1400.60 930.40 3191.55 2398.95 1062.50 1746.05 375.80 743.40 2248.60 1162.15 2421.35 3078.40 3889.70 473.60 1895.40 2418.25 5019.00 1614.10 1176.10 459.50 2285.95 3134.75 19.6.82 4.10.82 18.10.82 20.1.83 7.4.83 18.7.83 18.7.83 12.10.83 22.12.83 23.1.84 7.7.84 25.10.84 11.3.85 11.4.85 6.6.85 12.8.85 7.1.86 3.2.86 26.2.86 30.5.86 11.8.86 24.10.86 3. In all these six appeals the accused and victim are same. The accusations relate to same series of transaction starting from the year 1981 till 1986. One F.I.R. was registered and the same charge-sheet filed in all the six trials. The learned trial court while framing charge, split it into six charges confining the charge in each trial within the span of twelve months. In T.R. No.14/10 of 1999/90 concerning CRA No.70, the period of transaction is from January 1984 to December 1984, where the Appellant received three commission cheques for CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 4 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 different amounts from the Division Office, deposited the same in SB Account No.282 and withdrew total sum of Rs.6652/- from the account presenting cheques on 27th January 1984, 7th July 1984 and 25th October 1984 using forged signatures of Gitamayee Das on the withdrawal cheques. Similarly the period of transaction in T.R. No.12/8 of 1999/90 concerning CRA No.71 is for the year 1982, the period of transaction in T.R. No.13/09 of 1999/1990 concerning CRA No.72/2002 is for the year 1983, the period of transaction in T.R. No.11/02 of 1999/1990 concerning CRA No.73/2002 is from August 1981 to December 1981, the period of transaction in T.R. No.16/12 of 1999/19990 concerning CRA No.74/2002 is for the year 1986 and in T.R. No.15/11 of 1999/1990 concerning CRA No.75/2002, the period of transaction is for the year 1985. 4. The Appellant admits his employment as such in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, Berhampur Branch and also admits his recommendation in favour of Gitamayee for her appointment as insurance agent. He denies rest of the accusations and submits in his defence that the family of Gitamayee wanted her marriage with him CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 5 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 and as the proposal of marriage could not be materialized, they created such false story being revengeful against him. 5. Prosecution examined many witnesses (varying from eleven or twelve in each case) in support of their case and proved up-to 99 documents including the opinion of the handwriting expert. Most of the witnesses and documents are either same or of similar nature in each case. No evidence was adduced from the side of the Appellant in his defence. Learned Trial Court formulated three points for determination in each trial, which can be summed up as that, whether the Appellant obtained illegal pecuniary advantage of such amounts, i.e. Rs.6,652/- in CRA 70/2002, Rs.7,498.40 paisa in CRA 71/2002, Rs.8,675.20 paisa in CRA 72/2002, Rs.640/- in CRA 73/2002, Rs.8,670.40 paisa in CRA 74/2002 and Rs.13,695.95 paisa in CRA 75/2002, by falsely and dishonestly operating the bank account in the name of Gitamayee using forged withdrawal cheques in her name by operating agency licence of Gitamayee without her knowledge? 6. Miss Gitamayee Das has been examined as a witness in each case. She denied her knowledge about her appointment as Insurance Agent, the insurance business undertaken in her name, receipt of CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 6 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 commission cheques from Division Office, opening of SB Account No.282 in IOB at Mujagarh Branch, receipt and deposit of commission cheques in SB Account No.282 and withdrawal of such amounts from said account through withdrawal cheques. 7. In CRA 70 of 2002, the application forms for agent in the name of Gitamayee have been proved under Ext.1 and Ext.2; commission vouchers under Ext.36, 37, 39 & 40 along with endorsement certificates of the Appellant under Ext.36/1, 37/1, 39/1 & 40/1; commission cheques issued by Division Office under Ext.35/2, 38 & 41 along with appending signatures on the counter foils of those cheques under Ext.35/3 & 38/1; the pay-in-slips (deposit slips) depositing different cheques in SB Account No.282 have been proved under Ext.35/4 & 41/1. The withdrawal cheques under Ext.6, 42 & 43 along with signatures of the Appellant thereon under Ext.6/1, 42/1 & 43/1 have been proved. Further, the admitted signatures and specimen signatures of the Appellant have been proved under Ext.15 to Ext.31 and Ext.5 to Ext.5/19. The admitted and specimen signatures of Gitamayee have been proved under Ext.7/1, 7/2, 8/1, 8/2, 9/1, 9/2, 10/1 to 10/4 & Ext.11 to Ext.11/29 along with her specimen handwriting CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 7 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 under Ext.12 to Ext.12/5 have been proved by the prosecution. Similarly all such documents have been proved by prosecution in each case which are not detailed here. 8. The employment and working of the Appellant as Inspector- cum-Development Officer at Berhampur Branch of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company during the relevant period is not disputed. This has been stated specifically by all official witnesses. The Appellant has also admitted the same during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. So it is established that the Appellant was a public servant during the relevant period. 9. It came to the notice of the authority regarding fraudulent activities of the Appellant for the first time when the Branch Manager (Murali Behera) of the IOB, Mujagarh Branch wrote letters to Gitamayee in later part of the year 1986 to furnish her fresh specimen signature and Gitamayee in her letter dated 24th December, 1986 replied that she did neither open the bank account, nor did present cheques nor withdraw money from the account, but someone else has done the forgery in her name. The letters of the Branch Manager as well as the reply of Gitamayee were produced in evidence and proved CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 8 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 by the prosecution. The Branch Manager, Murali Behera as well as Gitamayee, both have been examined in support of prosecution case and they have stated in favour of the prosecution. It is evident from their evidence coupled with the cheques presented (marked under different exhibits), the signatures and the endorsements appended thereon and read with the opinion of the handwriting examiner (expert) that, those cheques presented concerning the amounts withdrawn are in the handwriting of the Appellant and not in the handwriting of Gitamayee. It also came out from the evidence of the cashiers (Bata Krushna Mohanty and Bijay Kumar Panda), the then Branch Managers (Gokulananda Panda and Murali Behera) of IOB, Mujagarh Branch that Account No.282 was operated by the Appellant and he received the amounts paid by the withdrawal cheques. The Appellant is also the person who presented the commission cheques in the account. 10. Hemanta Kumar Pradhan is the concerned Clerk working in the Division Office at Cuttack and dealing with issuance of Insurance Agency Licence during the relevant period of 1984. He, as a witness for prosecution, has spoken about issuance of Insurance Agency Licence in the name of Gitamayee on the recommendation of CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 9 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 Appellant. Said Gitamayee was appointed as the Insurance Agency under the Appellant and this fact is not disputed.
Legal Reasoning
11. The officials of the Division Office and Branch Office (Mr. S.K. Nasipuri–P.W.5 in T.R.No.14/10 of 1999/90 relating to CRA 70 of 2002), Mr.B.P.Pattnaik – the Development Officer of Berhampur Branch and a witness for prosecution in all the six trials, have stated about the role played by the Development Officer for issuance of Insurance Agency Licence and his authority to receive the commission cheques from the Branch Office on behalf of the agent. Mr. B.P. Pattnaik has further stated that the Appellant has received those twenty six commission cheques from the Branch Office by using the code number of Gitamayee (3570/16/487) and Licence No.ORI 3510938, by putting his signature in the counter foils. Said B.P.Pattnaik being acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the Appellant has certified that the signatures as well as handwritings appearing in the cheques for presenting in the bank account and for withdrawal of money from the bank account are of the Appellant. This has been confirmed by the handwriting examiner in his opinion with reasoning CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 10 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 under Ext.57 to 60, Ext.77 to 80, Ext.88 to 91, Ext.68 to 71, Ext.88 to 91 and Ext.80 to 83 in different trials against the Appellant. 12. Therefore, from the evidence of all such witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and the documents produced under different exhibits along with the opinion handwriting expert examiner it is established that the Appellant operated bank account no.282 in the name of Gitamayee and deposited the commission cheques issued in the name of Gitamayee which he received from the Insurance Branch Office on her behalf, deposited the same in her name and withdrew/ received respective amounts on different occasions during that relevant period from 1981 to 1986 by forging the signature and handwriting of Gitamayee for such transactions in the bank account. 13. In order to attract the offence of criminal misconduct defined under Section 5(1)(d) of the P.C.Act, 1947, it is required to be established that the public servant by abusing his position as such obtains the pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means. In the instant case, it has been categorically stated by Mr. B.P. Pattnaik that the Appellant either as the Inspector or as the Development Officer is not entitled to receive the commission amount meant for the agent in CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 11 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 respect of the insurance proposals. As has been discussed in above paragraphs, the Appellant taking advantage of his position as a public servant appointed Gitamayee Das as the Insurance Agent under him without her knowledge and received the commission amounts totaling to Rs.45,852.75 paisa during the relevant period meant for Gitamayee. So the prosecution has established commission of offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(d) punishable under Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act, 1947 against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 14. In respect of offences of forgery and forging a valuable security or document punishable under Section 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, it has been established through the evidence of different witnesses and those relevant exhibits, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, that how the Appellant has forged the withdrawal cheques in the name of Gitamayee Das to receive the amounts from the bank account after depositing the commission cheques fraudulently received on her behalf without her knowledge. The proved handwritings of the Appellant in the concerned cheques and records speak everything on this. CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 12 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 15. It is urged on behalf of the Appellant that six trials have been initiated against him, instead of one, for the same series of acts allegedly committed by him. It is submitted that framing of six charges for the same series of acts is illegal and the charge ought have been one instead of six separately and thus, the impugned convictions in all the appeals Viz. CRA No.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 are liable to be quashed for error in the charges. 16. Before delving into the contentions of the Appellant, the facts need to be described more specifically. The FIR in RC 53 dated 30th November 1987 was lodged on 30th November 1987. It is true that this same FIR gave rise to six separate charges in TR No.14/10 of 1999/1990 (CRA No.70/2002), TR No.12/08 of 1999/1990 (CRA No.71/2002), TR No.13/09 of 1999/1990 (CRA No.72/2002), TR No.11/02 of 1999/1990 (CRA No.73/2002), TR No.16/12 of 1999/19990 (CRA No.74/2002), TR No.15/11 of 1999/1990 (CRA No.75/2002). In all such trials, the accused is one and same, the victim is Gitamayee Das, prosecution witnesses and seizure lists are same and one sanction order was issued for prosecution in all the cases. The first cheque was encashed on 24th October 1981 and the last cheque on 10th CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 13 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 November 1986 and in between number of cheques were encashed by the Appellant in respect of same victim, namely Gitamayee. 17. Section 464 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the appellate court to direct for de-novo trial on the ground of error, omission or irregularity in the charge if it is felt and in the opinion of the appellate court that failure of justice has in fact been occasion by such error, omission or irregularity in the charge. 18. Section 219 of the Cr.P.C. prescribes that when a person is accused of more offences than one, but not exceeding three, of same kind within a space of twelve months from first to last date of such offences, he may be charged with and tried at one trial. Sub-Section (2) of Section 220 read with sub-section (2) of Section 212 of the Cr.P.C. enumerates that when a person charged with one or more offences of dishonest misappropriation of property is accused of committing one or more offences of falsification of accounts either to facilitate or conceal the commission of such offence, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence, provided that the time included between the first and last date of such offence shall not exceed one year. CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 14 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 19. In the case at hand, the offences charged are under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act, 1947 and Section 468, 471 of the I.P.C. The span of time of such offences is extended from 24th October 1981 to 10th November 1986 and in between various cheques in the name of Gitamayee were encashed by the Appellant fraudulently with dishonest intention. Since the offences which were committed in series of acts extended for a period of six years, the learned trial court split it into six parts in the form of six separate charges confining each part within the space of one year. It seems perfectly appropriate without violating the legal provisions concerning charge. Keeping each part of the offence not beyond the period of twelve months, the trial court did not commit any irregularity or illegality and his approach cannot be viewed with any error. It is not the submission of the Appellant that he was in fact prejudiced and he does not explain specifically in which manner failure of justice has occasioned on his part by separation of charges into six spans. Nonetheless, it is not a case of misjoinder of charges in which event there would have been a say arose in favour of the Appellant to contend failure of justice. It is also not the case that the Appellant has not been provided with the exact dates of encashement of cheques with CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 15 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 specific amounts in the charge against him, but it is the simple submission that had all the charges been joined it would not have occasioned in six convictions separately. As seen from the LCR, the Appellant did not raise his objection, with regard to framing of charges separately as stated hereinabove, either at the time of framing of charge by the trial court or before the trial court till pronouncement of judgment, but is raising his objection for the first time before this appellate court at the time of hearing of the appeal. As per sub-Section (2) of Section 465 of the Cr.P.C., while determining such failure of justice on the ground of error, omission or irregularity in the charge, the fact whether objection could or should have been raised at an earlier stage of the proceeding has to be materially regarded with. Therefore, viewing from any angle, no point is made out in favour of the Appellant to grant any benefit to him on his contentions relating to charge or error in charge. Accordingly, all such contentions are rejected entirely being devoid of merit. 20. It is further submitted that learned trial court while convicting the Appellant did not specify the conviction for specific offence. So for lack of specification of conviction for each offence, it is prayed to CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 16 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 quash the entire conviction. It is true that learned trial court has observed that the prosecution has successfully proved the charges for both the offences under the I.P.C. and the P.C. Act, 1947 without specifically mentioning the satisfaction of each such offence. Sub- section (2) of Section 354 of the Cr.P.C. prescribes that, “when the conviction is under the Indian Penal Code and it is doubtful under which of two sections, or under which of two parts of the same section, of that Code the offence falls, the Court shall distinctly express the same, and pass judgment in the alternative.” Clause-(c) of Sub-section (1) states that every judgment in every trial shall specify the offence of which and the Section of the Penal Code or other law under which the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced. At the same time, Section 465 clarifies that, “(1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 17 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.” 21. It is important here to see the language used by the trial court. Learned trial court have held in the concluding paragraphs of the judgments (before hearing on sentence) in each trial that, “… ... the prosecution has successfully proved the charges u/s 468/471 I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d)/5(2) of the P.C. Act. Accordingly, I hold the accused guilty for these offences and convict him thereunder.” Similarly for sentencing, learned trial court said in each case that, “The convict is accordingly sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5000/-(rupees five thousands) in default to undergo R.I. for three months on each count.” (emphasis supplied) 22. Therefore, it is clear from the language of learned trial court that the Appellant has been convicted for each of the offences stated so in the judgments and has been sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand) for each of the offences under the I.P.C. as well as under the P.C. Act, 1947. The words ‘on each count’ make it ample sense without any ambiguity. So all such arguments advanced on the part of CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 18 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45 the Appellant with regard to any confusion in the conviction and sentence by learned trial court are found baseless and meritless. Nevertheless, the Appellant is not found to have suffered with any prejudice thereby and no such occasion of failure of justice is warranted in the opinion of this court to interfere with the same. This Court accordingly clarifies the position and declines to interfere in the order of conviction and sentence by the trial court. 23. On the quantum of sentence, no merit is found in support of the Appellant to interfere with and as such, the appeals being found without merit, as per the discussions made above, the same are dismissed. (B.P. Routray) Judge C.R. Biswal/Secyl CRA Nos.70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 2002 Page 19 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 19:47:45