The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 399 of 2023 Application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. AFR Makardhwaj Kalsai ...… Petitioner --------------- -Versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance Department) ...…. Opp. Party Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- __________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. T.Nanda, B.K.Panda & D.Kar, Advocates For Opp. Party
Legal Reasoning
argued that there are ample materials to prima facie show the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence. Moreover, it is clearly revealed that he had played an active Page 3 of 7 role in entering into the evaluation centre and manipulated the tabulation sheets of the candidates with an ulterior motive. Mr. Maharana further submits that all these materials arouse a grave suspicion regarding commission of the offence by the petitioner-accused and therefore, the Court below has rightly rejected the petition for discharge. 6. It is trite that at the stage of framing charge/discharge, the Court is required to sift the materials on record solely for the purpose of being satisfied whether a prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. Further, if the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing charge. Reference may be had in this regard to the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4. 7. Keeping the above principle of law in mind, the facts of the case may now be examined. It transpires from the record that an advertisement was issued by the Collector, Bolangir on 17.12.2011 for filling up the posts of Page 4 of 7 R.I./A.R.I. and Amin. A recruitment committee was formed by the Collector. The question-cum-answer sheets were kept under the custody of the District Treasury, Bolangir. Upon examination of answer/tabulation sheets during enquiry it came to light that there were several manipulations and tampering. On investigation by the Vigilance Department, the complicity of several persons, including the present petitioner came to light. In particular, it was alleged that the petitioner along with one Niranjan Tiwari had entered into the E.O.C. building where the manipulation was done. The role of the petitioner in the occurrence came to light from the statement of the witnesses examined by the I.O. 8. A perusal of the statement of the witnesses available in the case record reveals that they have implicated the petitioner along with others as having been involved in the alleged manipulation. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R, fact remains that his complicity came to light in course of investigation. The petitioner has tried to explain his conduct by taking several pleas including the Page 5 of 7 plea that he had acted on the instructions of the superior officers i.e., the Collector and the Head Clerk. Obviously, this is his defence in the case and does not absolve him from the allegation. It is further stated that persons similarly situated as him have not been charge-sheeted but then there is nothing on record to show as to if the said persons had also entered into the E.O.C. building like the petitioner. Without stating anything more it would suffice to note that there are enough materials on record which give rise to a strong suspicion regarding commission of the alleged offence by the accused. In other words, the materials available on record are adequate for the Court to form a presumptive opinion that the accused had committed the offence. 9. Reading of the impugned order dated 13.12.2022 reveals that the Court below has gone through the F.I.R., charge sheet, statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other materials including documents to form a presumptive opinion that the accused persons including the petitioner adopted corrupt practices, manipulated and forged marks and documents. The Court Page 6 of 7 below has also held and, according to this Court rightly so, that the grounds for discharge put forth by the accused appears to be their defence plea which can only be answered during trial on the basis of evidence adduced. As regards the impugned order dated 20.12.2022, this Court finds nothing wrong therein so as to be persuaded to interfere. 10. In view of what has been stated hereinbefore this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the CRLMC is found to be devoid of merit and is therefore, dismissed. ……..…………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 26th April, 2023/ A.K. Rana, P.A. Page 7 of 7
Arguments
: Mr. N. Maharana, Standing Counsel for Vigilance Department. ________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 26th April, 2023 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner is one of the accused in C.T.R. No. 13 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bolangir. In the present application, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. he seeks to challenge the orders dated 13.12.2022 and 20.12.2022 passed by the said Court in rejecting the petition filed by Page 1 of 7 him for discharge and in framing charge under Sections 13 (2)/13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and Sections 465/471/477- A/120 B of the I.P.C. respectively. 2. Basing on report submitted by the D.S.P., C.I.D., C.B, Odisha, Cuttack C.I.D.,C.B. P.S. Case No.18 of 2014 was registered under Sections 120-B/409/465/ 467/471 of I.P.C. against one Debraj Mishra and others. Investigation of the case was subsequently transferred to the Vigilance Police and accordingly, Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.78 of 2014 was registered against the said Debraj Mishra and others under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 409/465/467/471/120-B of I.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, the Vigilance Police submitted charge sheet under the aforementioned offences on 30.07.2018. On 30.11.2022, the petitioner filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge on the ground that no prima facie case was made out against him. Said petition was heard by the Court below and rejected vide order dated 13.12.2022. Further, the Court below framed Page 2 of 7 charge under the aforementioned offences vide order dated 20.12.2022. 3. Heard Mr. T. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Maharana, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department. 4. Mr. Nanda has argued that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. but was arrayed as an accused on the statement of co-accused persons. Further, other employees who stand on the same footing have not been charge-sheeted but cited as prosecution witnesses. Moreover, in the departmental proceeding conducted against him on the self-same charges, the petitioner has been completely exonerated. Since no prima facie case is made out, the impugned orders are bad in law. Mr. Nanda further submits that the petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion. 5. Mr.N. Maharana, on the other hand, has