The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.312 of 2025 N. Pravat @ N. Prabhat Kumar Choudhury @ Prabhat Kumar Choudhury …. Petitioner Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate & Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA …. Order No. 04. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 21.08.2025 1.
Legal Reasoning
reach at a conclusion that the petitioner is prima facie involved along with others. By harbouring suspicion, the petitioner is not to be added as an accused and made to face the trial unnecessarily. Any such exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C without evidence on record and adding some one as an accused is likely to cause miscarriage of justice and the said aspect has been completely lost sight of by the learned court below, while passing the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1 and therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with. 11. Accordingly, it is ordered.
Arguments
Heard Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2025 passed in connection with G.R. Case No.162(A) of 2024 by the learned J.M.F.C., Aul arising out of Aul P.S. Case No.101 of 2024 on the grounds stated with consequential directions issued. 3. Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material on record either in the FIR or the chargesheet to connect the petitioner with the alleged misappropriation. The submission is that the petitioner was not chargesheeted for the offences committed and in course of trial, on an application of the Prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., he has been arrayed as an accused. In absence of any such Page 1 of 6 evidence even remotely suggesting the involvement of the petitioner, according to Mr. Katikia, learned counsel, the learned court below could not have arrayed him as an accused exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and hence, the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2025 as at Annexure-1 is not legally tenable, hence, liable to be set at naught. 4. On the contrary, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State submits that audit was held but the report of the audit is not available and in so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was the Branch Manager of the Bank at the relevant point of time when the alleged misappropriation was committed leading to the withdrawal of an amount of Rs.11,15,013/- from the account of the husband of the informant, who has been examined as P.W.4. The further submission is that the petitioner being the Branch Manager by then supposed to have knowledge about the misappropriation and there appears to be connivance among the accused persons and rightly therefore, the learned court below, on the application received under Section 319 Cr.P.C., arrayed him as an accused to face the trial and hence, the impugned order at Annexure-1 is not be disturbed. 5. Perused the depositions of the witnesses examined before the learned court below in G.R. Case No.162(A) of 2024. In fact, an application Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the Prosecution in G.R. Case No.162(A) of 2024 and thereafter, the case against the petitioner was split up registered as G.R. Case No.162(B) of 2024. As it appears, the learned court below referring to the evidence received in G.R. Case No.162(A) of Page 2 of 6 2024 held that the petitioner should be arrayed as an accused. According to the learned court below, the evidence on record is overwhelming and hence, exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be invoked. 6. Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence at all against the petitioner upon a bare reading of the depositions of the witnesses examined in G.R. Case No.162(A) of 2024. To counter the same, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State submits that the learned court below prima facie found the involvement of the accused persons including the petitioner as he was the Branch Manager of the Bank by then, even though, he was not chargesheeted. Mr. Ray, learned AGA also refers to the depositions of P.Ws.1 and 4 to submit that the petitioner’s involvement is revealed. 7. P.W.1, namely, Sandeep Kumar Nayak, the Branch Manager of the Bank by the time of his examination deposed that the petitioner was in-charge of the Bank as the Manager for a period of three years and it was during the relevant period when the alleged misappropriation was committed. The evidence of P.W.4, namely, wife of the informant reveals that whenever she had been to the Bank to up-date the passbook, it was not carried out by the petitioner and also the other Bank employees informing her that the same is not possible due to failure in the link. It is also revealed from the evidence of P.W.4 that she disclosed about the alleged incident regarding withdrawal of the money lodging a complaint before the petitioner and thereafter, reported the same to the local police. Page 3 of 6 8. It is quite obvious for opposite party No.4 not to have any direct knowledge regarding the alleged misappropriation but in so far as the chargesheet is filed, two of the employees are found to be involved and not the petitioner. No doubt from the testimony of P.W.4, it is suggested that she reported the incident to the petitioner and at last, lodged the FIR i.e. Annexure-2. The petitioner’s involvement could not be established during the police investigation, hence, he was not chargesheeted. The question is, how and what is the basis to add the the petitioner as an accused by the learned court below, while exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C? The learned court below has taken judicial notice of the decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vrs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others AIR 1983 SC 67 dealing with the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and when such extra- ordinary jurisdiction is to be exercised by a Court. On the same point, one more case law is referred to in Hardeep Singh Vrs. State of Punjab and others 2014 (3) SCC 92. In Hardeep Singh (supra), the Apex Court held and concluded that if no chargesheet is filed to array someone as an accused, a Court shall have to wait till the stage of trial to exercise jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Ram Kishan Rohtagi (supra), the Apex Court held that such power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extra-ordinary in nature and hence, to be sparingly exercised and only if, compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against any other person not chargesheeted. 9. In the case at hand, admittedly, the petitioner was not chargesheeted. No evidence is coming forth to suggest that Page 4 of 6 during any such audit and report received, the involvement of the petitioner was revealed. In so far as the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 are concerned, at no stretch of imagination, it can be treated as overwhelming as concluded by the learned court below. Mere surmise cannot take the place of evidence to add the petitioner as an accused. Though, the petitioner was a Branch Manager of the Bank during the relevant period by itself is not sufficient to array him as an accused along with others by exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. On a proper reading of the depositions of the witnesses examined in G.R. Case No.162(A) of 2024, it is suggested that the petitioner was in-charge of the Branch at the relevant point of time. Save and except such evidence, nothing is revealed by any of the witnesses including P.W.1, the Manager of the Bank to clearly suggest that the petitioner was equally response along with the other accused persons in the alleged misappropriation. 10. The law enunciated in Hardeep Singh (supra) reiterates the circumstances under which power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is to be exercised. The decision in Ram Kishan Rohtagi (supra) reminds a Court to exercise the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C only under extra-ordinary circumstances and not routinely and on the drop of a hat receiving requisition from the Prosecution. Nothing is on record to show and satisfy the Court that the petitioner was in any way directly or indirectly responsible in the alleged withdrawal of money having connivance with the co-accused persons. It is reiterated that suspension without proof cannot be the basis to add the petitioner as an accused to face the trial. The Court is of the Page 5 of 6 humble view that evidence must have to resurface during trial to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In the case of the petitioner, nothing is revealed and shown from the evidence on record received in G.R. Case No.162(A) of 2024 to
Decision
12. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2025 as at Annexure-1 passed in connection with G.R. Case No.162(A) of 2024 by the learned J.M.F.C. Aul is hereby set aside. Consequently, the proceeding in G.R. Case No.162(B) of 2024 is quashed for the reason stated and discussed hereinbefore. 13. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 22-Aug-2025 12:10:17 TUDU Page 6 of 6