The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.697 of 2024 1) Muralidhar Singh 2) Sarbeswar Samal ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Bidyadhar Mansing State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Opp.Party Represeted By Adv. – P.C.Das, ASC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 03.07.2024 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the case records. 3. The present application has been filed by the Petitioners with a prayer to quash the order under Annexure-3 i.e. the order dated 28.11.1996 thereby the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar has taken cognizance of offences in G.R. Case No.872 of 1996 for commission of an offence under Section 9 of the Orissa Conduct of Examination Act, 1988. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset submitted that initially a complaint was lodged making allegations against 14 accused persons, namely 1-Sarat Kumar Mohanty, 2-Nigamananda Mohanty, 3- Abhayananda Mohanty, 4-Sankarsan Mahabhoi, 5-Ramesh Chandra Ray, 6-Kumar Pani, 7-Dr. Dwarikanath Nayak, 8-Raj Kishore Nayak, Page 1 of 4. 9-Rajendra Prasad Das, 10-Muralidhar Singh, 11-Sarbeswar Samal, 12- Pradeep Kumar Pani, 13-Pramod Kumar Pani, 14-Dillip Kumar Swain @ Dillu. He further submitted that some of the accused persons other than the present petitioners, who are accused Nos.10 & 11, were arrested in the meantime and have been released on bail. So far the present petitioners are concerned, they were enlarged on pre-arrest bail by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that initially an F.I.R. was lodged on 22.03.1996 alleging leakage of the question papers of +2 Science examination wherein allegations have been made against accused persons including the present Petitioners. The learned trial court vide order dated 28.11.1996 has taken cognizance of the offences. While the matter stood thus, the dispute with regard to leakage of question papers reached this Hon’ble Court in OJC No.5116, 5117 & 5118 of 1996. This Court, vide order dated 21.01.1997 passed in OJC No.5116 of 1996, appointed retired Judge of this Court Hon’ble Justice V.Gopalaswamy as a Commissioner of inquiry. Hon’ble Justice V.Gopalaswamy, after conducting a thorough inquiry, had submitted a detailed report on 29.09.1999. A copy of said report has been annexed to the present application as Annexure-2. On perusal of the report, it appears that in the concluding portion of the report the Inquiry Commission has observed as follows:- “Sri B.P.Das, the Principal of the B.J.College, Sri R.K.Nayak, the Assistant Controller of Examinations of the Council, Sri Muralidhar Singh and Sri Sarbeswar Samal, two Senior Assistants of the Council are made accused in the criminal case. On a consideration of the materials placed on record, the Committee finds that they are not involved, either directly or indirectly, in the leakage of question papers (Pages 403, 406 & 410).” Page 2 of 4. 6. In view of the aforesaid report filed by the Inquiry Commission on an inquiry headed by Hon’ble Justice V.Gopalaswamy, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that there exists no material against the Petitioners regarding their involvement in the alleged crime whether directly or indirectly. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that despite such report having been submitted in the year 1999, the matter has been pending for over two decades. Accordingly, he further contended that any further continuance of the present proceeding would be an abuse of process of law and the same is against of interests of justice. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the entire proceeding in the shape of G.R. Case No.872 of 1996 as against the present Petitioners be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in taking cognizance of the offences vide order dated 28.11.1996 under Annexure-3 to the present application. He further submitted that the order under Annexure-3 is a detailed order and it reveals that the case is well made out against the present Petitioners. Accordingly, the learned trial court has rightly taken cognizance of the offences involving the present petitioners. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the order taking cognizance is unblemished and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the cognizance order under Annexure-3 to the present application. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful consideration of the materials on record, as well as the report of the Inquiry Commission headed by Hon’ble Justice V.Gopalaswamy (retd. Judge of this Court), this Court observes that the commission in its inquiry report dated 20.09.1999 has clearly stated that the present Page 3 of 4. Petitioners are not involved, either directly or indirectly, in the leakage of the question papers. Therefore, the allegation under Section 9 of the Orissa Conduct of Examination Act, 1988 is not made out against the present petitioners. Moreover, this Court further observes that although the order taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate is in the year 1996, the inquiry report of the commission is of the year 1999. The report submitted by the Commission of Inquiry pursuant to the order passed by this Court in a writ petition is a detailed one and based on thorough inquiry by the Inquiry Commission. It further appears that the Inquiry Commission has taken note of all the aspects of the matter before filing the inquiry report. Taking into consideration the observations of the Commission of Inquiry and further keeping in view the fact that the occurrence is of the year 1996, this Court in the greater interests of justice, is of the view that any further continuance of the case would definitely cause harassment and injustice to the petitioners and would also result in an abuse of the processes of law. Accordingly, the entire proceeding in the G.R. case No.872 of 1996 pending in Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, so far as it relates to the present Petitioners, stands quashed. 9. In such view of the matter, the CRLMC is allowed. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4. Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Jul-2024 11:31:56