) ----------------- Sangita Routray … v. State of Odisha
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 449 of 2024 (An application under Sections 482 & 401, Cr.P.C. read with Section 397, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No.27 of 2017 arising out of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.10 of 2011) ----------------- Sangita Routray …… Petitioner - versus - State of Odisha (Vigilance)…… Opp. Party For Petitioner :- Mr. L. Dash, Advocate For Opp.Party :- Mr. Sangram Das, Standing Counsel (Vigilance) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment : 30.06.2025 1. The legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 09.07.2024 passed in T.R. Case No.27 of 2017 by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack has been called in question in this Revision. 2. of
Legal Reasoning
The background facts of the case are that, on the basis credible information regarding possession of disproportionate assets by the husband of the Petitioner CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 1 of 8 namely Prasant Kumar Routray, the State Vigilance Wing proceeded with an enquiry. In course of the enquiry, search was also simultaneously conducted in the residential house of the husband of the Petitioner at Mahanadi Vihar, Cuttack and at other different places. Since no satisfactory explanation could be offered with regard to acquisition of properties found in the possession of the husband and the Petitioner so also in the names of the family members, on the report submitted by the Vigilance D.S.P., a case was registered under Section 13(2) & 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the IPC. 3. In course of the investigation, a substantial portion of disproportionate properties were found in possession of the present Petitioner being the wife of Prasant Kumar Routray. The Petitioner was also implicated in the case for having abetted for the same and accordingly she is found implicated in the offences under Section 13(2) & 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the IPC. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Vigilance Department, the Petitioner moved the learned Trial Court for her discharge from the offences as alleged against her, by filing an application under Section 27 of the Cr.P.C. CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 2 of 8 5. The learned Special Judge (Vigilance) having examined the relevant documents, found the Petitioner to be an abettor and declined to discharge her from the charges, she being an accused in the case. Being aggrieved by that order, the Petitioner has moved herein before this Court. 6. The impugned order has been assailed by the Petitioner herein on the ground that the Petitioner is a housewife and has no independent income of her own and she has no scope also to get way other than instructions, if any, given by her husband in acquisition of the property in her name. It is the further ground of defence of the Petitioner that the acquisition of property is through her father and, as such, these properties ought to have been included in the property held to have been disproportionate to the known source of income of her husband, and accordingly the Petitioner is entitled to be discharged from the offences alleged.
Legal Reasoning
7. Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the State Vigilance on the contrary submitted that the grounds on which the impugned order has been assailed, as submitted by the Petitioner, requires substantial evidence to be led during trial. He also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 558, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has thoroughly dealt CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 3 of 8 with the grounds on which the wife cannot escape the liability in the event any property is acquired by her at the instance of her husband. 8. Pertaining to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels, it is trite to mention that at the stage of framing of charge or considering an application for discharge, this Court is not expected to meticulously appreciate the evidence or weigh its probative value. The test is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court must consider whether the material on record, if unrebutted, would warrant the accused being put on trial. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in the matter of P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs. State reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 558, has held as under: 12. In P. Nallamal (Supra), it was contended before this Court that an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act cannot be abetted by a non-public servant. Further, that there is no provision in the 1988 Act which provides punishment for abetment of offence under section 13(1)(e) whereas it provides punishment for abetment of some other offences under the 1988 Act. However, after discussing the history of Section 13 of the 1988 Act which was a substitute for some of the provisions of Chapter-IX of IPC which deals with offences by or relating to public servants, this Court held that an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act can be abetted by any other person. After reading Section 107 of IPC and accepting suggestions of Counsel, this Court gave illustrations that how even a person who is not a public servant can abet the offence CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 4 of 8 under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. The relevant paragraphs are as follows: “24. Shri Shanti Bhushan cited certain illustrations which, according to us, would amplify the cases of abetments fitting with each of the three clauses in Section 107 of the Penal Code vis-a-vis Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. The first illustration cited is this: If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of how other public servants have become more wealthy by receiving bribes and A persuades the public servant to do the same in order to become servant acts accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot be any doubt that A has abetted the offence by instigation. the public rich and Next illustration is this: Four persons including the public servant decide to raise a bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons prompt the public servant to keep such money in their names. If this is a proved position then all the said persons are guilty of abetment through conspiracy. The last illustration is this: If a public servant tells A, a close friend of his, that through he has acquired considerable wealth bribery but he cannot keep them as he has no known source of income to account, he requests A to keep the said wealth in A's name, and A obliges the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved position A is guilty of abetment falling under the “Thirdly” clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code. 25. Such illustrations are apt examples of how the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act can be abetted by non-public servants. The only mode of prosecuting such offender is through the trial envisaged in the PC Act.” (Emphasis Provided) 13. In other words, any person who persuades a public servant to take bribes, decides to raise money through CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 5 of 8 bribes along with a public servant and prompts such public servant to keep the wealth with him/her or keeps the amassed wealth of a public servant in his/her own name is guilty of committing the offence of abetment of offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. We must also note that the 2018 Amendment to the 1988 Act has substituted Section 12 of 1988 Act and made all offences under the 1988 Act abettable. 10. Having regard to the principles decided in the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred to by the learned Standing Counsel for the State (Vigilance) and the materials appearing in the case record besides the reasons assigned by the learned trial court, there is no material before this Court apparently to show that the Petitioner would in any manner be resolved of the allegations of acquisition of properties which are not out of the known source of income of her husband. The Petitioner’s contention that she, being a housewife, cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act unless specific acts of conspiracy or abetment are alleged against her, is noted. However, the charge-sheet alleges that properties standing in her name formed part of the disproportionate assets of the principal accused. It is settled law, as reaffirmed in P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs. State (Supra), that the mere status of a housewife is not, by itself, sufficient to absolve an accused where prima facie material exists that properties were acquired in her name from ill-gotten wealth of a public CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 6 of 8 servant. While the Petitioner has stressed upon the fiduciary relationship with her husband and her dependence upon his instructions, the same cannot, at this stage, be accepted as a ground to discharge her without the opportunity for the prosecution to establish the source of funds and the true ownership and acquisition of the assets. These are matters which squarely fall within the realm of evidence to be led during trial. 11. As far as the ground that the acquisition of property by her through her father, is absolutely a matter within the adjudication of dispute, wherein the Petitioner would get sufficient opportunity to prove her case. The ground propounded by the Petitioner being one of defence which should get her out of the implication in the offences, cannot prima facie be taken as no ground to make out a case involving her in the offence to face the trial, and as such, this Court finds no material in the impugned order to be illegal or improper and, therefore, refrains from interfering with the same. The learned trial court has considered the materials placed before it, the grounds urged by the Petitioner, and the applicable law. The trial court's reasoning does not suffer from perversity, illegality, or material irregularity. The grounds raised by the Petitioner pertain to her defence, which CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 7 of 8 can only be considered upon a full-fledged trial and not at the stage of discharge. 12. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to substitute its own view for that of the trial court unless the impugned order reflects glaring illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness materially affecting the rights of the accused. Accordingly, the CRLREV stands dismissed. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. The 30th day of June, 2025 S.K. Parida, ADR-cum-APS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SAMIR KUMAR PARIDA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentic Copy Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Jul-2025 14:13:20 CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 8 of 8