The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.595 of 2024 Pramod Kumar Dash …. Petitioner Mr. J. Samantaray, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 08.07.2025 Order No. 07. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order as at Annexure-4 dated 10th May, 2024 passed in connection with Crl. Tr. No.3/43 of 2024 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, whereby, an application seeking discharge pressed into service by him consequent upon submission of chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 with the plea advanced was declined. 3. Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the chemical examination reports were produced before the learned court below, copies of which are at Annexure-3, while demanding discharge of the petitioner in terms of Section 227 Cr.P.C. but it was followed by the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4. The further submission is that Page 1 of 5 discharge was declined on the ground that the petitioner does not have any right to produce evidence or material referring to a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005 (1) OLR SC 357 with a conclusion that no such reports are admissible at the stage of framing of charge. It is contended that in view of favourable reports having been received and produced before the learned court below, the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner could not have been rejected out rightly and hence, therefore, the impugned decision by order dated 10th May, 2024 at Annexure-4 is liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice. 4. Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, justifies the impugned order at Annexure-4 with the submission that the sample items collected at the time of inspection were found to be adulterated, hence, therefore, learned court below in view of the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 being filed for offences punishable under Sections 272, 273, 420 and 468 IPC rightly to decline discharge the petitioner. 5. Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Apex Court in Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin and another Vrs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy and another (2017) 12 S.C. R. 118 to contend that any such material, if not produced along with the chargesheet and the same is suppressed or withheld, a Court is not debarred from summoning or relying upon the same even, if such document is not a part of the chargesheet. By placing reliance on the decision (supra), the contention is that the petitioner since Page 2 of 5 produced the chemical analysis reports, learned court below was bound to consider the same before proceeding to dispose of the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The Court is of the view that the chargesheet since was filed in the year 2021 and by then, it is claimed by Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel that the chemical reports had already been prepared, whether, the reports had arrived, when the investigation was concluded, is a matter to be gone into by learned court below in absence of any such material available with the Court at present, hence, therefore, it would be best serve, if learned court below is directed to examine such a plea apart from considering the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for its disposal on merit. 6. Perused the FIR i.e. Annexure-1, according to which, Balianta PS Case No.20 of 2021 was registered on 20th January, 2021 in connection with alleged incident involving the petitioner with the allegation that he was responsible in the manufacture of sauce and pickle items by adulterated means and stored in unhygienic conditions. Upon closure of investigation, the chargesheet was filed as per Annexure-2 in the month of October, 2021. Referring to the reports of the laboratory as at Annexure-3, the claim of the petitioner is that the samples have been found to be within prescribed standard as per Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’). In fact, the said reports have been produced by the petitioner before the learned court below and the same have not been accepted on the ground that he has no right to produce the same. In fact, learned court below was of Page 3 of 5 the view that at the time of framing of charge, an accused has no such right to submit evidence and therefore, the chemical analysis reports i.e. Annexure-3 notwithstanding to be favourable have been declined to be received and referred to. On a bare perusal of reports i.e. Annexure-3, the Court finds that all the samples confirmed to the prescribed standard under the Act based on the tests carried out. If the reports were produced by the petitioner, according to the Court, learned court below was required to enquire about the same before proceeding to consider such an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. No such exercise was undertaken by learned court below instead entirely ignoring Annexure-3 proceeded to dispose it of on the plea for discharge moved by him. According to the Court, such an enquiry was needed in view of the chemical analysis reports and copies of the same having been produced by petitioner as at Annexure-3. In other words, the Court is of the conclusion that learned court below is required to be directed to call for such reports and if, the same are already received in the meantime, to consider the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of the petitioner afresh and according to law as such an exercise would rather serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with a direction as aforesaid to be complied with by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in Crl. Tr. No.3/43 of 2024 and upon considering Page 4 of 5 any such chemical analysis reports being received from laboratory, upon hearing of the petitioner, to proceed to dispose of the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C which is, accordingly, restored to file. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 10th May, 2024 at Annexure-4 is hereby set aside with the matter remanded back for compliance in view of the directions as aforesaid. 9. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. Rojina (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 10-Jul-2025 19:14:58 Page 5 of 5