High Court of Orissa
Case Details
AFR IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 280 of 2025 Duryodhan Sam Samal …. Petitioner Mr. P.R. Chhatoi hatoi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha ha (Vig.) …. Oppo pposite Party Mr. Sangram For Vigilance De gram Das, S.C. nce Department CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 10.12.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. By means means of this application, the Petitioner titioner seeks to challenge the orde e order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learn e learned Special Judge, Vigilance, C ance, Cuttack in T.R. Case No.77 of 2009, w 009, wherein the learned court de rt decline to allow the prayer of the f the Petitioner discharging him fr him from the offences alleged. 2. The backg
Facts
background facts of the case, in brief, a rief, are that on 07.12.2006, one M one M. Sethi, Inspector of Vigilance, C.D e, C.D., Cuttack lodged a written re itten report before the S.P., Vigilance, Cuttac Cuttack Division alleging misapprop appropriation of Government funds by offic y officials of Aul Block in the execu execution of three road works, whereupon eupon a vigilance enquiry was initi s initiated. During enquiry, it was reveal revealed that an estimate for impro improvement of Manapur–Nadikula villag village road was prepared by the Ju
Legal Reasoning
he revisional limited one nner. One of ot be against Court has to f revisional tice ex facie. uestion as to perly and in , it may be ts revisional falls within of charge is gs under the 14. This C down prin jurisdiction of prayer f 228 Cr.P.C his Court in the aforesaid judgement has als principles to be considered for exerci iction under Section 397 particularly in the c ayer for quashing of charge framed under S r.P.C. is sought for as under: has also laid exercise of n the context nder Section “27. Ha 27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction hese two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Sectio these tw diction under Section 482 CRLREV No.280 of of 2025 Page 5 of 8 jurisdictional f the Code and the fine line of jurisdi of the r us to enlist istinction, now it will be appropriate for us to distinct h the courts he principles with reference to which the the pri ver, it is not hould exercise such jurisdiction. However, it should ible to state nly difficult but is inherently impossible to only di st and upon ith precision such principles. At best and with pr of this Court, bjective analysis of various judgments of this objectiv nciples to be e are able to cull out some of the principles we are jurisdiction, jurisd conside charge either particul articularly, with regard to quashing of charge tion 397 or n exercise of jurisdiction under Section 3 in exer the case may ection 482 of the Code or together, as the cas Section be: sidered for proper exercise of owers of the 7.1. Though there are no limits of the powers 27.1. T the more the ourt under Section 482 of the Code but the mo Court u on is to be power, ower, the more due care and caution is he power of xercised in invoking these powers. The pow exercise the cularly, uashing criminal proceedings, particularly quashin of the Code harge framed in terms of Section 228 of the charge and with should d be exercised very sparingly and rest of rare circums ircumspection and that too in the rarest o ases. cases. 27.2. T 7.2. The Court should apply the test as to w he uncontroverted allegations as made fro the unc record ecord of the case and the documents sub therewi herewith prima facie establish the offence or he allegations are so patently absurd and inhe the alle mprobable that no prudent person can ever improb such a uch a conclusion and where the basic ingredie criminal offence are not satisfied then the a crimi ay interfere. may in s to whether e from the ts submitted ce or not. If d inherently ever reach ngredients of en the Court 7.3. The High Court should not unduly interfe 27.3. Th eticulous examination of the evidence is need meticul onsidering whether the case would end in conv conside r not at the stage of framing of charge or qu or not a f charge. of charg interfere. No is needed for in conviction or quashing 7.9. Another very significant caution that the 27.9. A have to ave to observe is that it cannot examine the vidence and materials on record to dete evidenc hether there is sufficient material on the ba whethe which t hich the case would end in a conviction; the c oncerned primarily with the allegations take concern at the courts ne the facts, o determine the basis of ; the court is s taken as a CRLREV No.280 of of 2025 Page 6 of 8 whole w hole whether they will constitute an offence so, is i o, is it an abuse of the process of court lead njustice. injustic fence and, if rt leading to 27.13. 7.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception ule of continuous prosecution. Where the offe rule of even b ven broadly satisfied, the Court should be inclined nclined to permit continuation of prosecution han its quashing at that initial stage. The Court than its xpected to marshal the records with a view to expecte dmissibility and reliability of the docume admissi acie.” ecords but is an opinion formed prima facie.” records eption to the he offence is ld be more cution rather Court is not iew to decide cuments or 15. The rev and start inconsisten legally per cognizant o application he revisional court cannot sit as an appellate start appreciating the evidence by findin sistency in the statement of witnesses and it ly permissible. The High Courts ought izant of the fact that trial court was dealing w cation for discharge.” pellate court finding out and it is not ught to be ling with an 6. In view of iew of the submissions made by the respect espective parties, the case record, a ord, and in light of the principles enuncia nunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme preme Court in the aforesaid decision of ion of Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (Supra), it appears that the Petitione titioner was duly awarded the work work, executed it in accordance with the th the sanctioned estimate, and, follo d, following check measurement, was releas released with the corresponding bill ng bill. The subsequent act of the officials i cials in awarding another contract fo tract for the same work cannot, in the abse e absence of any material indicating icating that the Petitioner conspired with the ith the subsequent contractors or offic r officials, be attributed to him. There is no is no material on record to sugges uggest that the subsequent work was e was executed in collusion with the ith the Petitioner or that the earlier work car rk carried out by him was of sub f sub-standard quality resulting in any l any loss to the Government exche t exchequer. Admittedly, the trial court did n t did not consider this aspect while while adjudicating the application under S nder Section 227 Cr.P.C. CRLREV No.280 of of 2025 Page 7 of 8 7. Having re ing regard to the above and applying t ying the test of existence of a pri a prima facie case, this Court finds no m s no material on record that would would necessitate continuation of the trial trial against the Petitioner merely o erely on the ground that subsequent work w ork was awarded in the same locat location. In these circumstances, the pra prayer of the Petitioner is allow allowed, and the impugned order dated 23 ted 23.05.2025 is quashed. 8. According
Arguments
the Junior Engineer, Sri Pitabas Mishra of hra of Aul Block CRLREV No.280 of of 2025 Page 1 of 8 for an amount of nt of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was technically ically sanctioned by the Assistant E stant Engineer, Aul Block, namely Sri Sant i Santosh Kumar Balabantaray on 1 y on 14.09.2004 and administratively appro approved by the Collector, Kendra endrapara on 11.11.2004 from MPLAD LAD funds. The work order for the for the said work was issued by the B.D.O. i D.O. in favour of the present Petition etitioner on 14.11.2004, and the Petitioner e oner executed the work between De en December 2004 and January 2005. It 05. It is further alleged that anoth t another estimate amounting to Rs.2.40 s.2.40 lakhs was prepared for the s the same road, though under a changed na ged name, by the same Junior Engin Engineer on 07.12.2005, and the work was e was executed by one Jayant Kumar umar Jena. Similarly, for construction of th of the C.C. road from the irrigation igation embankment to Aayatpur village, an ge, an estimate of Rs.2 lakhs was pre as prepared by the same Junior Engineer, an eer, and the work order dated 22.09 22.09.2005 was issued in favour of one f one Biswanath Mallik. On the bas he basis of the F.I.R., investigation was unde s undertaken, and the technical wing l wing of the Vigilance found that the Gove Government had suffered a total los tal loss of Rs.3,56,603/- due to inflated me ed measurements recorded by the co the concerned Assistant Engineer and Junio Junior Engineer, who had allegedl legedly entered into a criminal conspirac spiracy with the contractors and th and thereby shown undue official favour. The learned trial court, upon re pon receipt of the Charge-Sheet, took cogniz cognizance of the offences and issu d issued summons to the Petitioner. The r. The Petitioner appeared pursuant rsuant thereto and moved an application un ion under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seekin seeking discharge from the offences alleged, lleged, which was rejected, hence this ce this revision. 3. Mr. Chhat Chhatoi, learned counsel for the Petitioner itioner, submitted during the course course of hearing that the order of the lea the learned court declining to disch discharge the Petitioner is illegal, erron , erroneous, and CRLREV No.280 of of 2025 Page 2 of 8 unsustainable in la in law. According to him, the learned cou ed court failed to appreciate that th that the Petitioner had executed the wor e work between December 2004 a 004 and January 2005, and that the bill in bill in his favour was passed only a only after due check measurement. It is his is his submission that if, at the same e same location, a subsequent work order wa der was issued in favour of another other contractor under a changed description ription, the same cannot be attribute ttributed to the present Petitioner, nor can an can any criminal liability be fasten fastened on him in connection with such such subsequent work. In the abse e absence of any clear report indicating tha ing that the work executed by the Pe the Petitioner was either beyond the approv pproved scope or deficient in qualit quality, no offence is made out against him nst him. Learned counsel further co her contended that the trial court failed t iled to take into account the techni technical inspection report dated 11.07.2006 7.2006 submitted by one Mr. B.P. D B.P. Das, J.E., Vigilance, wherein it was t was specifically observed, with reg ith regard to the subsequent work (Sl. No. I . No. II), that the pre-facing estimat stimate had not been furnished, thereby ca by casting doubt on the necessity o ssity of repeated execution in the same area e area. On these premises, it was ar was argued that the Petitioner had no role wh ole whatsoever in the work subseque bsequently awarded for the selfsame location cation to another contractor, and th and that his implication in the case is unfo is unfounded and unsupported by the by the record. 4. Mr. Sangra Sangram Das, learned counsel for the State ( State (Vigilance), on the other han er hand, submitted that the grounds urg s urged by the Petitioner are e are essentially matters of defence, w ce, which can appropriately be y be examined during the course of trial and ial and not at the stage of discharge charge. He, however, fairly submitted that d that there is no report indicating t ating that the work executed by the Petitio Petitioner was of non-standard quali d quality. CRLREV No.280 of of 2025 Page 3 of 8 5. The Hon’ Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of G of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishors horsinh Rao, reported in 2023 SCC O CC OnLine SC 1294, has held as f ld as follows:- “11. The de at the stage expression Cr.P.C. is t if any, prod give any rig the stage of accused is t investigatin The defence of the accused is not to be looke stage when the accused seeks to be discharge ssion “the record of the case” used in Sectio .C. is to be understood as the documents and a y, produced by the prosecution. The Code do any right to the accused to produce any docum tage of framing of the charge. The submission sed is to be confined to the material produced tigating agency. looked into charged. The Section 227 and articles, ode does not document at ission of the duced by the 12. The pri charge is th at this stag need not b earlier deci Nath Thap Mohan La of evaluati framing of facie case. charge, the the existen offence all probative v whether the conviction he primary consideration at the stage of fram e is the test of existence of a prima-facie cas is stage, the probative value of materials on not be gone into. This Court by referring r decisions in the State of Maharashtra Vs hapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of M n Lal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the aluation to be made by the court at the st ing of the charge is to test the existence of case. It is also held at the stage of fram e, the court has to form a presumptive opin existence of factual ingredients constitutin ce alleged and it is not expected to go dee ative value of the material on record and to her the material on record would certainly l iction at the conclusion of trial. f framing of cie case, and ls on record erring to its a Vs. Som of MP Vs. ld the nature the stage of ce of prima- framing of e opinion to stituting the go deep into nd to check ainly lead to 13. The po Section 397 to call for a the purpos regularities The object or an error has crept i refer to the Ramesh C Section 39 explained a The power and jurisdiction of Higher Court on 397 Cr.P.C. which vests the court with the ll for and examine records of an inferior cour urposes of satisfying itself as to the legali arities of any proceeding or order made in a object of this provision is to set right a patent error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity rept in such proceedings. It would be appo to the judgment of this court in Amit Kapo h Chandra (2012) 9 SCC 460 where sco on 397 has been considered and suc ined as under: Court under ith the power r court is for legality and de in a case. patent defect ersity which apposite to apoor Vs. ere scope of succinctly CRLREV No.280 of of 2025 Page 4 of 8 12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court w “12. Se ower to call for and examine the records power nferior court for the purposes of satisfying it inferior o the legality and regularity of any proceedi to the l rder made in a case. The object of this provi order m o set right a patent defect or an error of jurisd to set r r law. There has to be a well-founded error or law. ay not be appropriate for the court to scrutin may no rders, which upon the face of it bears a to orders, areful consideration and appear to be in acco careful with law ith law. If one looks into the various judgme his Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisd this Co can be an be invoked where the decisions under cha are gro re grossly erroneous, there is no complianc he provisions of law, the finding recorded is the pro n no evidence, material evidence is igno on no udicial discretion is exercised arbitrari judicial erversely. These are not exhaustive classes, b pervers erely indicative. Each case would have merely etermined on its own merits. determi ourt with the cords of an ying itself as oceedings or provision is f jurisdiction error and it scrutinise the s a token of n accordance judgments of l jurisdiction er challenge pliance with ded is based ignored or bitrarily or sses, but are have to be that 3. Another well-accepted norm is that the rev 13. Ano urisdiction of the higher court is a very limite jurisdic and can nd cannot be exercised in a routine manner. O he inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be a the inbu n interim or interlocutory order. The Court an inte keep the exercise of rev in mind i eep urisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex jurisdic here the Court is dealing with the question Where whethe hether the charge has been framed properly accorda ccordance with law in a given case, it m eluctant to interfere in exercise of its rev reluctan jurisdic urisdiction unless the case substantially falls the cate he categories aforestated. Even framing of ch much-advanced stage in the proceedings und a much rPC.” CrPC.”
Decision
ordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed of. (Chittaranjan Das Judge Dash) Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 11-Dec-2025 17:05:56 CRLREV No.280 of of 2025 Page 8 of 8