The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV Nos.858, 859, 860 & 861 of 2018 (In the matter of applications under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) Sri Babaji Charan Khuntia (in CRLREV No.858/2018) Dinabandhu Patnaik (in CRLREV No.859/2018) Nrusingh Charana Panda (in CRLREV No.860/2018) Manohar Jaiswal (in CRLREV No.861 of 2018) ……. Petitioners -Versus- State of Orissa (in all cases) ……. Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Rath, Senior Advocate (in all cases) For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sangram Das, Standing Counsel, Vigilance (in all cases) CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 25.07.2024 : Date of Judgment: 29.10.2024 S.S. Mishra, J. All the four Criminal Revision petitions are arising out of a common order. Therefore, the same are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners are accused in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.08 of 2006 registered under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 420/120-B of the I.P.C. The investigation was carried out and the police have filed a charge-sheet in all the four cases alleging the commission of the aforementioned offences. 3. The prosecution, inter alia, alleged that the present petitioners have conspired with a bottling plant, namely, M/s. Hi-Tech Bottling Plant, by misusing their official positions and have shown the production capacity of the Plant to be 1,00,000 bulk liters on the basis of which, the Minimum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) had been calculated. The said misconduct of the accused persons caused a loss to the Government Exchequer to the tune of Rs.1,36,69,678/-. The petitioners, being the accused persons have filed application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. separately before the learned trial Court seeking discharge from the cases. By the impugned order dated 03.09.2018, all the applications moved by the petitioners seeking discharge from the present case have been turned down. Hence, the present petitioners Page 2 of 20 are assailing the impugned order dated 03.09.2018 passed by the learned Special judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No.81 of 2009 by invoking the Revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department. 5. To be precise, the allegation in the F.I.R. against the accused persons is that they hatched a conspiracy with M/s Hi-Tech Bottling Plant and abused their official position showing undue favour to M/s. Hi-Tech Bottling Plant by reducing the Minimum Guaranteed Quota (MGQ) causing loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.1,36,70,000/- during February, 1997 to August, 2002. It is alleged in the F.I.R that as per Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Foreign Liquor Rules as amended in 1997, all Bottling Plant Licensees shall guarantee 50% installed capacity of their Bottling Plant in a year as Minimum Guaranteed Quota (MGQ). In case of any shortfall in the MGQ fixed for the Plant by the Excise Commissioner, the licensee of the Bottling Plant shall be liable to make payment of the duty for the short-fall quantity and the amount will be recovered as arrears due from the licensee. As per prosecution, the Hi- Tech Bottling Plant started functioning since 1995-96. The District Industries Page 3 of 20 Centre (D.I.C) fixed the install capacity of the Plant as 15,00,000 bulk liters and issued Permanent Registration Certificate No. 15/12/03036 dated 29.11.1995. For the purpose of fixation of MGQ of different Bottling Plants, the Excise Commissioner vide letter dated 23.12.1997 intimated to different Collectors to submit their Permanent Registration Certificate issued by District Industries Centre (D.I.C). Accordingly, the Bottling Plants submitted their Permanent Registration Certificate issued by District Industries Centre. On receipt of Permanent Registration Certificate from the D.I.C, the Hi-Tech Bottling Plant submitted statement showing the production capacity of the Bottling Plant as 1,00,000 LPL, accordingly, MGQ was fixed at 50,000 LPL. Though it is clearly mentioned in the Permanent Registration Certificate issued by D.I.C., the installed capacity is 15,00,000 Bulk Liters, Sri Nrusingh Charan Panda, Ex-Junior Assistant, office of the Excise Commissioner, Cuttack while preparing the statement, intentionally reduced it to 1,00,000 Liters. Consequently, the Excise Commissioner fixed the MGQ at 50,000 LPL being 50%. The Government in Revenue & Excise Department vide order No. Ex.123/97-543 Dated 03.03.1998 approved the fixation of MGQ on the basis of production capacity and MGQ fixed by the Excise Commissioner. Accordingly, the Excise Commissioner communicated the Page 4 of 20 MGQ fixed in respect of Hi-tech Bottling Plant at 50,000 LPL to the Collector, Sambalpur and Excise Superintendent, Sambalpur vide letter dated 07.03.1998. 6. The learned trial Court, while rejecting the applications of the petitioners, has, inter alia, observed as under: “Perused the case record as well as the documents filed by the learned counsels representing the accused and case citations filed by them. I am agreed with the submissions as laid by the learned counsel for the prosecution concerning to the manipulation of statement in relation to M/s. Hi-Tech Bottling Plant while forwarding to the Government for fixation of MGQ. Hon’ble Apex Court has declared extent of power of the excise commissioner exclusive to fix quantum referring Rule – 6C of Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Foreign Liquor Rules, 1989 as well as about install capacity of the plant of accused Manohar Jaiswal on the basis of letter written by Excise Commissioner, Orissa to the Collector, Sambalpur. Such views of the Hon’ble Apex Court has been accepted by the prosecution counsel. But, the allegation brought by the prosecution appears altogether different. The govt. had directed the excise commissioner to submit statement fixing quantum of MGQ as per the production capacity of the individual unit granted in PRC issued by DIC and to supply the copy of PRCs of said units. The commissioner complied the order of Government in part by submitting the statement of production capacity and the MGQ of the units, but without attaching their PRCs. The PRC of M/s. Hi-Tech bottling plant granted for 15 lakh litres, but the statement is made to one lakh litres. Thus, there is flagrant misuse of official position by the commissioner and his policy seat staff who prepared wrong statement falsifying the requisite facts against M/s. Hi-Tech bottling plant. The Govt. according to the statement of Excise Commissioner notified MGQ of the units, which is obviously wrong, being not followed by actual figure as given in PRC by DIC. It Page 5 of 20 appears Hon’ble Apex Court has only been apprised of the letter issued by the Govt. to the collector, Sambalpur and nothing. The real commission of illegality remains at the hard of the excised commissioner and his policy seat staff who prepared and sent statement to the Govt. a wrong one suppressing the true install capacity of the unit in question. Further, Hon’ble High Court in CRLMC as supra has dismissed the petition of accused Nrusingha Panda seeking quashing of the proceeding being convince with the submission of the counsel of vigilance that order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal 2644 of 2009 relates to civil consequence of the Act and it will not absolve the accused persons from criminal liability they have incurred. Therefore, in the light of the discussion as afore mentioned and views taken by the Hon’ble High Court in CRLMC No.2533/2015, the citations of the apex court as reliance place by the learned defence counsel squarely not applicable to adjudge at the threshold in this proceeding to hold that the accused Manohar Jaiswal is granted with install capacity of one lakh litres, but not 15 lakhs litres for production of liquor and MGQ was fixed correctly in proportion to it capacity. It is concluded thus that there are prima facie supporting materials to proceed trial in the case against the accused persons.” 7. The moot question posed for determination in this case is that as to whether any criminal conspiracy has been hatched by the present petitioners with M/s. Hi-Tech Bottling Plant to fix the MGQ at 50,000 bulk liters by calculating on the basis of production capacity i.e. 1,00,000 bulk liters instead of install capacity of 15,00,000 bulk liters. 8. While answering the aforementioned question, further two issues emanate as incidental to the prime dispute: Page 6 of 20 (i) Firstly, whether the petitioners have indulged in manipulation of records or have used their official position to calculate the production capacity at one lakh LPL. (ii) Secondly, MGQ has been rightly calculated by considering the production capacity instead of taking into consideration the install capacity. 9. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has drawn my attention to Rule 6-A of the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Foreign Liquor Rules, 1989, which reads as under: “6A. Minimum guaranteed quantity of India-made foreign liquor. – (1) (a) Every successful bidder of Foreign Liquor "OFF" shop/licensee of IMFL "ON" shop shall before obtaining licences, guarantee the sale of the minimum guaranteed quantity of Foreign Liquor as fixed by the Excise Commissioner. The bidder/licensee shall, before obtaining licensee submit monthly distribution statement to the concerned Collector. The Licensee before the 30th June, may revise and resubmit the monthly distribution statement for the portion of the Excise year from August to March. The Collector shall be competent to revise and approve such revised statement. There shall be no further changes in the distribution statement so approved.] (b) M.G.Q. in LPL and duty thereon will be fixed by the Excise Commissioner from time to time subject to apprasal of Government.” 10. Perusal of the aforementioned provisions makes it clear that the Commissioner of Excise has exclusive jurisdiction to fix the MGQ. Rule 6(c) (1) of the Excise Policy confers the power on the Excise Commissioner to fix the MGQ, which no more mandates fixation of MGQ to be done on the basis Page 7 of 20 of installation capacity as disclosed in the Permanent Registration Certificate (PRC) by the District Industries Centre (DIC). On the other hand, the policy for the year 1997-98 in Paragraph 10 (GA) provides the manner in which the fixation of MGQ in respect of bottling plants shall be done. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate, has drawn my attention to the Policy. The paragraph 10 (GA) of the Policy reads as under: “For the year 1997-98 all the bottling plants licensees shall guarantee 50% instant capacity of their bottling plants in a year as Minimum Guaranteed Quota (MGQ) and applicable excise duty shall be levied. In case of any shortfall in the MGQ fixed for the plant, excise duty for the short fall quality shall be levied and the amount shall be recovered as arrear dues from the licensee. During financial year 1997-98, the total MGQ shall be fixed at 30 lakhs LPL for the entire state.” Mr. Rath further submitted that, pursuant to the said policy guideline for the year 1997-98, the Excise Commissioner has fixed MGQ at Rs.37,67,000 LPL for all bottling plants across the State as against the target given in the policy at 30,00,000 LPL of MGQ. Therefore, Mr. Rath submitted that under no circumstances, neither the policy, nor the Rules contemplate the fixation of MGQ on the basis of DIC Permanent Registration Certificate, rather the excise policy 1997-98 and the Rules 1997 leave it to the Excise Commissioner to fix the MGQ. However, on the basis of the Accountant General Audit Report, the present case has been registered alleging that there Page 8 of 20 was a loss to the exchequer to the tune of Rs.1,36,69,672/-. Mr. Rath further argued that the Audit Report, which was made the basis for registration of the case against the petitioners, lost its sanctity because on the basis of the said audit report, a demand notice for realization of Rs.1,36,69,672/- was issued to M/s. Hi-Tech Bottling Plant. The said demand notice was called in question by M/s. Hi-Tech Bottling Plant by filing W.P.(C) No.5086 of 2006. This Court vide judgment dated 02.04.2008 rejected the said writ petition. M/s. Hi-Tech Bottling Plant, assailing the said judgment dated 02.04.2008 filed an SLP (Civil) No.10679 of 2008 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was converted to Civil Appeal No.2644 of 2009. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal and quashed the Demand Notice dated 30.03.2006. It is relevant to reproduce the entire judgment/order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
Decision
“Leave granted. This Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa dated 02nd April, 2008 passed in Writ Petition(C) No.5086 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking quashing of Demand Notice dated 03.03.2006 issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Sambalpur directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.1,36,69,672/- towards Excise Duty on short production of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (for short ’IMFL’) of Hi-Tech Bottling Plant, as assessed by the District Industries Centre (for short ’DIC’), Sambalpur. The Appellant is a small scale unit registered under the DIC, Sambalpur. It sought a licence for manufacturing IMFL in the year 1995. In its application seeking licence, it mentioned the Page 9 of 20 installed capacity as fifteen lakhs litres and the short fall was to be determined on the basis of the installed capacity. The Superintendent of Excise, Sambalpur, on the basis of an assessment made by the DIC, issued a Demand Notice dated 30th March, 2006 asking the appellant to pay Rs.1,36,69,672/- towards Excise Duty on short production of IMFL of Hitech Bottling Plant. Appellant challenged the said Demand Notice by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court of Orissa which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The short question in this case is "What was the installed capacity of the appellant’s plant"? Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel for the appellant, assisted by Shri Shyam Diwan, learned senior advocate, submitted that as per Rule 6C, as introduced on 25.11.1997, of the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege)Foreign Liquor Rules, 1989 (for short ’the Rules’), installed capacity has to be assessed by the Excise Commissioner and not by the DIC, as has been done in this case. Since, the Excise Commissioner, Orissa in its letter dated 07th March, 1998 written to the Collector, Sambalpur has assessed the installed capacity to be one lakh litres, 50%of which would be fifty thousand litres, duty has to be paid on 50% of the short fall i.e. fifty thousand litres and admittedly duty has been paid on it. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the assessment made by the DIC holding the installed capacity as fifteen lakhs litres given by the appellant in the application for registration. Rule 6C of the Rules reads as follows: "6C. Minimum Guaranteed Quantity of Bottling Plants - (1) All the licensees of (I.M.F.L./Beer) Bottling plants shall guarantee for bottling of 50% of the installed capacity of their bottling plants in a year, as the minimum guaranteed quantitiy. In case of any shortfall in the minimum guaranteed quantity fixed for the plant by the Excise Commissioner, the licensee of the bottling plant shall be liable to make payment of the duty for the short fall quantity and the amount will be recovered as arrears due from the licensee." A bare perusal of Rule 6C shows that, after the said Rule was introduced, all the licensees of IMFL have to guarantee for bottling of 50% of the installed capacity of their bottling plants in a year, as the minimum guaranteed quantity (MGO). In case of any shortfall in the MGO fixed for the plant by the Excise Commissioner, the licensee has to pay duty on the shortfall quantity. We have also gone through Page 10 of 20 the letter written by the Excise commissioner, Orissa to the Collector, Sambalpur, Annexpure P-4 annexed to this appeal, in which he has assessed the installed capacity as one lakh litres. In our opinion, the submission of Shri Sorabjee appears to be correct and has to be accepted that the duty has to be paid on the shortfall of the installed capacity assessed by the Excise Commissioner and not by any other person or authority. The Excise Commissioner has assessed the installed capacity in the present case as one lakh litres, 50% of which would be fifty thousand litres. Admittedly, a duty has been paid on the same by the appellant. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the impugned Demand Notice dated 30.03.2006 demanding the appellant to pay Rs.1,36,69,672/- is hereby quashed. We are told that pursuant to the interim orders passed by the High Court, the amount in question had been deposited. Since, we have accepted the appeal, any amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the interim orders passed by the High Court or otherwise shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith.” 11. Perusal of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it very clear that the demand made by the Government to M/s. Hi-Tech Bottling Plant on the basis of the audit report was found not sustainable, therefore, the amount of Rs.1,36,69,672/-, which was deposited by M/s. Hi-Tech Bottling Plant pursuant to the notice was directed to be refunded to M/s. Hi-Tech Bottling Plant. Hence, the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that at no point of time there was any loss to the exchequer because of wrong fixation of MGQ. Rather the Hon’ble Supreme Court endorsed the MGQ fixed on the basis of its production capacity. Apart from that, the order also supplied emphasis to Rule 6(c) of 1997 Rules and held that it is the Page 11 of 20 Excise Commissioner who is solely empowered under the Rule to fix MGQ. Therefore, the prosecution case is that MGQ be fixed on the basis of installation capacity reflecting in the Registration Certificate of DIC was disapproved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. Per contra, Mr. Sangram Das, leaned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, while controverting the submission of Mr. Rath, contended that one of the accused in the F.I.R., namely, Nrusingha Charan Panda, had made a similar attempt seeking quashing of the proceeding initiated against him before this Court by filing CRLMC No.2533 of 2015. This Court vide order dated 16.11.2015 has already dismissed the said case by refusing to quash the proceeding. He further submitted that said Nrusingha Charan Panda also attempted to persuade this Court for quashing of the proceeding on the basis of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, this Court did not found favour in respect of Nrusingha Charan Panda and held as under: In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner “6. very emphatically states that the demand notice issued by the Superintendent of Excise for realization of Rs.1,36,69,672/- has been quashed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s) 10679 of 2008 on the ground that there has been violation of Rule 6(c) of the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Foreign Liquor Rules, 1989, inasmuch as, the Commissioner of Excise has not fixed the installed capacity of the Bottling Plot in Page 12 of 20 question, rather the same has been fixed by the D.I.C. and accordingly, the notice issued was quashed. 7. As far as the Civil Appeal is concerned, it was relating to the demand notice issued by the Superintendent of Excise on the basis of assessment made by the D.I.C. 8. While preparing to install capacity of the petitioner and to fix the MGQ, the department has taken note of the fact that the D.I.C., Sambalpur has granted license for manufacturing of I.M.F.L., 1995 and total capacity of the plant is 1,50,000 litres.” Therefore, Mr. Das submitted that since this Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has already dismissed the said contention raised by the petitioners, these Revision petitions should not be entertained. He further contended that, at the time of consideration of discharge petition and/or at the time of framing of charges, the value of the material on record cannot be gone into and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true. Thus, inquiry into pros and cons of the matter cannot be gone into nor can the probative value of the material on record be assessed. He further submitted that, at the time of consideration of discharge petition or at the time of framing of charge, hearing has to be confined to the material form part of the charge sheet. The documents or the material which are extraneous to the charge sheet cannot be given credence to decide the question of charge. He submitted the same by relying upon para-18 of the judgment in the case of Page 13 of 20 State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568, which reads as under: “18. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. The reliance on Articles 14 and 21 is misplaced. The scheme of the Code and object with which Section 227 was incorporated and Sections 207 and 207 (A) omitted have already been noticed. Further, at the stage of framing of charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the accused is accepted, there would be a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge. That would defeat the object of the Code. It is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the learned counsel for the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence. By way of illustration, it may be noted that the plea of alibi taken by the accused may have to be examined at the stage of framing of charge if the contention of the accused is accepted despite the well settled proposition that it is for the accused to lead evidence at the trial to sustain such a plea. The accused would be entitled to produce materials and documents in proof of such a plea at the stage of framing of the charge, in case we accept the contention put forth on behalf of the accused. That has never been the intention of the law well settled for over one hundred years now. It is in this light that the provision about hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 is to be understood. It only means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression 'hearing the submissions of the accused' cannot mean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the settled law. At the stage of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police.” While relying upon paragraphs 79 & 80 of the judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu & others, reported in (2003) 6 Page 14 of 20 SCC 768, Mr. Das contended that the Revisional jurisdiction against an order of discharge should be exercised in rarest of rare cases only to correct the patent error of jurisdiction, and not to reappreciate the matter. Hence, the plea put forth by the petitioners being the plea of defence cannot be entertained at the stage of consideration of discharge. Paragraphs-79 & 80 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “79. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with the appellate power. A Revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure. 80. This Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI30, has held that interference in the order framing charges or refusing to discharge is called for in the rarest of rare case only to correct the patent error of jurisdiction.” 13. I have given a conscious consideration to the submission made by both the counsels and perused the entire material produced before this Court. At the outset, it is made clear that while considering the plea of discharge of the petitioners in the present case, this Court has only considered the Excise Page 15 of 20 Policy for the year 1997-98, Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Foreign Liquor Rules, 1989 and the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2644 of 2009. The present revision petitions are being decided on the strength of the aforementioned materials. Obviously, the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or the Rules occupying the field and have legal effect cannot be form part of a charge sheet. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Das that, this Court, while exercising its Revisional jurisdiction, tests the legality of the order of discharge cannot consider the documents beyond the charge sheet may not hold water in the present case. This Court, while deciding a revision petition, can very well rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and statutory provisions applicable to the case and evaluate as to whether any offence is made out or not. 14. It is eminent from the record that the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the AG Audit Report, which, inter alia, found that there has been a loss of Rs.1,36,69,672/- to the exchequer because of the wrong determination of MGQ on the basis of production capacity, instead of install capacity reflecting in the DIC Registration Certificate. On the basis of said Audit Report, a demand was raised. The said demand notice was the subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Page 16 of 20 quashed the demand notice and, inter alia, arrived at a conclusion that the demand was vexatious and dehors the law. Therefore, impliedly, the entire AG audit report has been disapproved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, on the basis of the same AG Audit Report, a criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner cannot be sustained. No doubt, one of the accused person, namely, Nrusingha Charan Panda, approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceeding. This Court vide order dated 16.11.2015 rejected the said petition. Although the Coordinate Bench of this Court has noted the judgment/order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in SLP (Civil) No.10679 of 2008 but it has not elaborately dealt with the same at that stage. The 1997 Rules and the Excise Policy, which have a statutory effect was also not brought to the notice of the Court. Therefore, the prosecution cannot derive much benefit out of the said order dated 16.11.2015 passed by this Court in CRLMC No.2533 of 2015. 15. It is a well-settled principle of law that on the basis of the material available on record if the Court finds that there is no scope for the prosecution to prove its case and secure a conviction, the prosecution can be quashed at the very threshold. Page 17 of 20 16. Taking into consideration the aforementioned fact, submission at bar and in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others vrs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692 and in the case of B.S. Joshi & others vs. State of Haryana & another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, this case deserves merit. Relevant paragraph of the judgment in Gian Singh (supra) which supports the case of the petitioners reads as under: 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal Page 18 of 20 proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia (supra) in paragraph-7 of the judgment held as under:- “7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial state is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into Page 19 of 20 consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.” 17. Taking into account the entire conspectus of the present matter, this Court is of the view that in the face of the judgment/order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the 1997 Rules and the Excise Policy, subjecting the petitioners to the rigors of trial would be a futile exercise because it is conclusively held that the State has not faced any financial loss as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, I am of the considered view all the four Criminal Revision Petitions deserve merit. Accordingly, they are allowed. As a consequence of the same, the impugned order dated 03.09.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack in T.R. Case No.81 of 2009 is quashed. 18. Accordingly, the CRLREVs are disposed of. …………………. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 29th of October, 2024/Amit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTACK Date: 30-Oct-2024 16:48:26 Page 20 of 20