The High Court
Case Details
AFR THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPCRL No.112 of 2020 In the matter of an application under Articles-226 of the Constitution of India ; ----------- Brundaban Pradhan S/o. Late Sanatan Pradhan of Village- Gopinath Sahi, District – Khordha. ……. Petitioner -Versus - State of Odisha, represented through its Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Secretariat Building, Bhubaneswar District- Khordha & others ……. Opposite Parties ___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Ray, Advocate For the Opp. Parties: Mr. D. Nayak, Addl. Government Advocate ___________________________________________________________ CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA THE HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 17th March, 2023 S. Talapatra, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this Court for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus for releasing the wife of the petitioner namely Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan and his brother 2 namely Dhaneswar Pradhan who were unlawfully taken to the custody by the opposite parties No.3 & 5 (typed as 4) on 10.10.2020. 2. It has been alleged that on 10.10.2020, Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan was taken into custody and on 14.10.2020 Dhaneswar Pradhan was taken into custody. The police went to the rented house of Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan at Bhubaneswar and breaking the lock, took away cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, Mangalsutra and other valuable items including Mobile Phone and gold ornaments. The local people witnessed the incident but they did not disclose anything out of fear. 3. The mother-in-law of the petitioner went to Baselisahi Police Station and saw her daughter-in-law tormented and tortured and she found marks of beating all over her body. The police did neither forward the arrested person/s to the Judicial Magistrate nor were they shown to be in custody. In such circumstances, the petitioner, husband of Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan, has filed this petition primarily for release. 4. It has been also stated that Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan has a
Legal Reasoning
physically challenged child and the said child has been facing serious difficulty for her unlawful custody. It has been stated in the petition that, when the mother of the petitioner raised objection against the unlawful police action, she was threatened by the police personnel and asked her 3 ‘to keep a safe distance’ from the persons confined, otherwise they will be entangled in several cases. The petitioner had also approached the higher authority of the police, Odisha Human Rights Commission and also the S.D.J.M., Khurda for inquiry and release. 5. In their counter affidavit, the opposite parties No.4 & 5 have stated that the allegations as leveled by the petitioner in respect of illegal custody of Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan and Dhaneswar Pradhan are all false, baseless and without an iota of truth. 6. It has been categorically stated in their counter affidavit, at para- 3, that the petitioner’s wife Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan and his brother, Dhaneswar Pradhan had never been arrested or illegally confined by the police on 10.10.2020 and 14.10.2020. 7. It has been admitted by those opposite parties that on the basis of the complaint filed by the mother of the petitioner namely Kuni Pradhan, a complaint case being Misc. Case No.191 of 2020 was registered in the court of the S.D.J.M., Khurda under Section-57 read with Section-97 of the Cr.P.C. The S.D.J.M., Khurda by his order dated 14.10.2020 directed all the opposite parties including the Superintendent of Police, Khurda, Superintendent of Police, Puri, I.I.C., Khurda Police Station and I.I.C., Baselisahi Police to submit their reply. Accordingly, the opposite parties No.3 & 5 had submitted their reply stating that no 4 such person namely Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan, wife of the petitioner was ever arrested or detained in connection with any case within the jurisdiction of the Baselisahi Police Station. The said complaint case being Misc. Case No.1991 of 2022 was rejected by the order dated 20.10.2020 delivered by the S.D.J.M., Khurda. 8. But in para-5 of the counter affidavit, the opposite parties No.3 & 5 have unfolded as follows:
Legal Reasoning
“It may be relevant to submit here that on 30.10.2020 at about 8 PM., S.I. of Police, Satyabadi Police Station namely Sri Basanta Kumar Jena caught raid handed four persons who were moving in a Maruti Suzuki Ciaz Car without number coming from the Pipili side. On verification, it was found that four persons were sitting inside the car including two ladies. The driver of the car on seeing the police team (who were performing motor vehicle checking duty at Pattnikia Chhack) alighted out of the car and fled away. It is relevant to state here that out of four persons sitting inside the car, two were ladies and one of them is the petitioner’s wife Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan. On personal search of Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan in presence of two independent witnesses and Executive Magistrate, brown sugar of 301 grams and Rs.2000/- and one Mobile Phone were seized from her exclusive and unauthorized possession as she failed to produce any authority/license regarding possession of such narcotics substance. Accordingly, a case was registered vide Satyabadi P.S. Case No.364/2020 under Sections-21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act against Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan, Rasmita Pradhan @ Mama, Kanhu Pradhan, Bishnu Sahu, Hamid, Sapa, Litan Behera and one Saraswati Behera as during interrogation, it was revealed that they were involved in supplying of Brown Sugar for the purpose of sale in the districts of Puri and Khurda.” A copy of the F.I.R. has been filed along with the counter affidavit. 9. According to the opposite parties No.3 & 5, due arrest memo was prepared and filed in the court of the local Magistrate. It has been 5 categorically denied by the opposite parties No.3 & 5 that the brother of the petitioner namely Dhaneswar Pradhan had been illegally detained since 14.10.2020. 10. Dhaneswar Pradhan has been living with his wife in his in-law’s house since October, 2020. Surprisingly, the petitioner, who is not a victim, did not file any rejoinder against the said assertion made in the writ petition. 11. Amidst conflicting claims, in the order dated 11.07.2022, we had recorded the submission of Mr. A.K. Nanda, learned Addl. Government Advocate who was appearing for the State. 12. It has been stated that Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan was arrested by Satyabadi Police Station in connection with a case-for dealing with the narcotic substance and she was produced virtually before the local court on 31.10.2020, in Satyabadi P.S. Case No.354/2020. Under the judicial order, her custody was extended. After the exchange of affidavit was complete and the version of the State was available, we passed the order dated 11.07.2022 directing the Inspector General of Police, Law & Order, Odisha to enquire into whether the petitioner’s wife namely Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan was illegally detained by the Baselisahi Police Station. It was categorically directed that the Inspector General of Police, Law & Order shall also inquire into what happened to Rupa 6 @ Snehalata Pradhan after 10.10.2020 till 31.10.2020. Such report was directed to be filed by 29.08.2022. In the order dated 06.09.2022, it has been reflected that in the State of Odisha, there is no post like Inspector General of Police, Law & Order. However, the State, in terms of our order dated 11.07.20922, assigned the responsibility of inquiry to the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack. 13. We modified our order dated 11.07.2022 in terms of the above change. We had further directed to complete the inquiry within thirty days from 06.09.2022. The Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack had filed the inquiry report on 11.10.2022. By the order dated
Decision
14.10.2022, we directed the Registry to furnish a copy of the report to the petitioner to file his response. The petitioner filed the response to the inquiry report on 16.11.2022. The additional response was filed by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack in response to the reply filed by the petitioner on the inquiry report, on 04.01.2023. From the report filed by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack on 11.10.2022, it appears that the petitioner’s wife Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan, the petitioner and two other persons, unrelated to the police administration namely Purna Chandra Nayak @ Sapa and Mr. Litan Behera were present in the Satyabadi Police Station on 14.09.2022 when the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack 7 commenced his inquiry. That apart, four Police officers were examined during the inquiry namely Jibananda Jena, the then IIC, Baselisahi Police Station, Puri, Sri Devi Prasad Patra, OPS, Dy. S.P., the then IIC of Satyabadi Police Station, Basanta Jena, S.I. of Police and the informant of Satyabadi P.S. Case No.364 of 2020, Subhashree Priyadarshini Nanda, S.I. of Police and the Investigating Officer of Satyabadi Police Station Case No.364 of 2020 under Section- 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act. 14. That apart, two independent witnesses namely Sri Makunda Mohapatra and Sri Prahallad Nayak were examined during the investigation. 15. The wife of the petitioner has stated in the inquiry that the Inspector, Jibanananda Jena and three others had come to her house at Khordha in plane cloth around 7-8 PM on 10th October, 2020. They asked her to come with them, which she obeyed. She was taken in a police vehicle to her house in Bhubaneswar situated near Rabi Talkies (Nilamadhab Apartment) which she had taken on rent. From there, they took her and kept her at Baselisahi Police Station. While she was at Baselisahi Police Station, she was beaten up by the police personnel. She also alleged that Inspector Jibanananda Jena asked for Rs.10,00,000/- from her and she gave Rs.4,00,000/- through her niece, 8 Ms. Sweety @ Madhusmita Behera who was staying in Baripada. However, on 31.10.2020 (on the day of Kumar Purnima) at 5 AM, she was brought to Satyabadi Police Station and she was produced in the court on the same day, after she was medically examined. The petitioner also supported the statement of his wife namely Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan. 16. Sri Purna Chandra Nayak @ Sapa is a co-accused in the Satyabadi Police Station Case No.364 of 2020. He has corroborated the detention of Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan. He has stated that he was also detained for 11 days along with his co-brother-in-law, Sukanta Nayak and his friend, Nimei. He was forwarded from Baselisahi Police Station, whereas his co-brother-in-law and his friend were let off. When he was taken to Baselisahi Police Station, he had seen Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan at the Police Station. 17. The witness, Sri Litan Behera, did not disclose anything about the petitioner’s wife, but he had stated that he was also taken to Baselisahi Police Station and thereafter, on the next morning, he was taken to Satyabadi Police Station. This statement clearly implies that Litan Behera was detained by Baselisahi Police Station on 31.10.2020. 18. Sri Jibanananda Jena, Inspector, who has been accused of causing unlawful detention and unleashing torture, has stated that he was 9 working in Baselisahi Police Station from 15.08.2019 to 07.12.2020. But he is not aware of any Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan being detained at Baselisahi Police Station during his tenure. He has flatly denied that neither did he go for conducting raid nor did he pick up Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan on 10.10.2020 from her house at Khurda town. He had never detained Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan from her house at Khurda town or detained her for 20 days in Baselisahi Police Station. 19. Sri Devi Prasad Patra, the then IIC of Satyabadi Police Station had narrated about the detention of the wife of the petitioner in connection with possession of brown sugar during patrolling on Bhubaneswar-Puri National Highway and the seizure of narcotic substance from their possession. 20. Sri Basanta Jena, S.I. of Police (retd.) was leading the said evening patrol. He corroborated the statement of Sri Devi Prasad Patra, the then IIC. 21. Two independent witnesses as named before were the seizure witnesses and therefore, they had no occasion to know what happened between 10.10.2020 to 31.10.2020. 22. According to the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, there is no evidence except the statements of three witnesses that Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan was detained in Baselisahi Police 10 Station. But he did not give any reason why their statements have been discarded. 23. On the basis of the statements of two seizure witnesses, the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, has come to an inference that the wife of the petitioner was caught red-handed in presence of the said two independent witnesses. Hence, the version of those three witnesses that she was under detention in the Baselisahi Police Station is a figment of imagination. Moreover, there is no technical evidence or the Station Diary Entry as regards the detention of the wife of the petitioner in the Baselisahi Police Station during the period from 10.10.2020 to 30.10.2020. Hence, it has been observed that the allegations are bound to fall through in absence of clinching evidence. 24. In response to the said report, the petitioner reiterated their version and criticized the report for ignoring the statement of Sri Purna Chandra Naayk @ Sapa. Sri Purna Chandra Nayak @ Sapa has categorically stated that he saw Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan at Baselisahi Police Station. So far as two independent witnesses are concerned, the petitioner has stated that those witnesses namely Makunda Mohapatra and Prahallad Nayak gave their consent to accompany the raiding party after being briefed about the information. There had been no attempt 11 from the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack to verify whether those persons were at all at the place from where Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan was arrested by using the techno-scientific inputs. There had been lot of CCTV cameras around, but no input has been collected from those CCTV cameras. In the additional reply, filed by the petitioner on 16.11.2022, it has been questioned why the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack did not feel it necessary to ascertain what happened to Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan after 10.10.2020 till 31.10.2020. The reference in this regard was specific. Strangely, the Superintendents of Police, Puri & Khurda were not examined. Such slip-shod inquiry does not serve the interest of fair inquiry. 25. It has been stated by the petitioner that the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack did not give due importance to the statements of those witnesses who corroborated the case of the petitioner and as a result of which, the finding as returned by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack turns out to be perverse for non-consideration of the material records. Even, the niece of the wife of the petitioner was not examined, though it had been categorically stated that Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan paid the IIC, Baselisahi Police Station, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- through her niece namely Sweety @ Madhusmita Behera. 12 We have referred the part of the response for demonstrating how the inquiry report has been prepared. 26. It has been further stated that the CCTV cameras in the Police Station were not installed, complying the direction of the apex court in Shafi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh: Judgment dated 03.04.2018. The entire approach of the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack is lost in protecting the incalcitrant or the image of the police force. 27. A further reply has been filed by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack. In para-6 of the said reply, it has been stated by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack that during examination, Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan, had stated to have been beaten up by the police at Baselisahi Police Station. But she did not disclose anything about her medical examination by the Medical Officer, District Jail, Puri. She has not complained about any ill- treatment by the police while she was forwarded to the Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, Puri and then it has been stated that “her treatment while she was in jail, is not relevant and need not be considered.” It will unfold that the said observation is unwarranted and unacceptable. 28. It has been further observed that the report of the Medical Officer, District Jail, Puri dated 05.11.2020 reveals that Rupa @ 13 Snehalata Pradhan was examined by the Medical Officer of the District Jail, Puri in pursuance of the letter No.698, dated 04.11.2020. One old injury on her right buttock suspected to have been caused by multiple strokes by hard and blunt object was found by the Medical Officer and opined that the age of the injury is about a fortnight. According to the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, since Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan was arrested on 31.10.2020, the said inquiry cannot be linked to her detention. 29. On the other hand, while she was medically examined by the Medical Officer, CHC, Sakhigopal after being arrested, no external injuries were detected. For better appreciation, a copy of the arrest memo, inspection memo, forwarding report and medical examination report have been enclosed with the said reply. There had been no attempt to relate the inquiry with the illegal detention since 10.10.2020. 30. Sri Purna Chandra Nayak has stated that he could not recollect the date when he was detained in Baselisahi Police Station, but clearly remembered that he saw Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan in that Police Station. 31. It has been asserted by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack that without delving into the merits of Satyabadi P.S. Case No.364 of 2020, inquiry was conducted about the alleged illegal 14 detention of Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan in the police custody from 10.10.2020 to 30.10.2020. 32. It has been averred that the CCTV footage are automatically deleted after 15 days, as the maximum storage capacity is for 15 days. Those CCTVs, installed around/in the Police Station building were of no help. But there is no statement whether the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack had made any initiative to check up whether any material can still be retrieved from the CCTV cameras. 33. We have thoroughly examined the records as produced with the affidavits. 34. Mr. R.R. Ray, learned counsel has urged this Court to discard the report of the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack as, it is apparent on the face of the records, that he did not carry out the investigation fairly. This observation that the injury report signed by the Medical Officer, CHC, Sakhigopal goes to show that no external injury was detected. But it is not very clear whether the procedure as laid down under Section-53(2) of the Cr.P.C. was followed. If Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan was examined properly, the old injury as detected by the Medical Officer of the District Jail could not have escaped the notice. 15 35. Mr. Ray, learned counsel has referred to the medical report dated 05.11.2022 as furnished by the Medical Officer, District Jail, Puri in which he opined as follows : “Our female ward inmate Snehalata sustained severe bruises in her right buttock on an area 6 inch X 7 inch caused by multiple strokes by hard and long object or hard objects, the epidermis is damaged and the skin became gangrenous & getting peeled out gradually, new skin to take time, cover up started in peeled up area. Age of injury about a fortnight-15 days. Simple in nature but may take time to heal up or may need skin grafting surgery.” The certified copy of the injury report is available at Flag-B of the records. This report debunks the slip-shod report of the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack. 36. Mr. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate has appeared for the opposite parties and submitted that there is no material of worth on the basis of which the allegation as made by the petitioner and his wife can be held established. The inquiry report as submitted by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack has clearly opined that the petitioner’s wife was never detained in the Baselisahi Police Station and there is no question of her being assaulted inside the Police Station. These allegations according to Mr. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate has been made to exert pressure on the police. 37. Mr. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate has further stated that the petitioner’s wife was caught red- handed with the 16 narcotic materials and as such, inference as drawn is bonafide and cannot be doubted. 38. That apart, Mr. Naik, learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that it is difficult to accept that the family members like the petitioner, who is the husband of Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan could not take up their grievances for a period which is more than a fortnight. They could have knocked the door of the justice. According to Mr. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate, no adverse inference against the opposite parties No.3 & 5 can be drawn. 39. In the turn of events, this Court cannot issue any writ of Habeas Corpus as now the petitioner’s wife is under custody as per the order of the Court for her being implicated in the Satyabadi Police Station Case No.364 of 2020. Hence, the prayer for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus stands dismissed, but the ancillary facts that have emerged cannot be overlooked by us. 40. Before the writ petition was filed, the IIC, Baselisahi Police Station and the Superintendent of Police, Puri were transferred. There were serious allegations including custodial violence and custodial death against them. Even the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack did not answer the specific reference made by this Court on what had happened to Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan after 10.10.2020 17 till 31.10.2020 and the same was left unanswered in the inquiry report. There had been denial on the basis of records. 41. From the evidence as led from the side of the petitioner, it would be apparent that the wife of the petitioner namely Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan was illegally detained in the Baselisahi Police Station for the period from 10.10.2020. The medical report as referred above, clearly indicates that the wife of the petitioner was subjected to physical assault on her buttock. Those cannot be self-inflicted. The evidence of the Medical Officer in the jail cannot be brushed aside. Moreover, it corroborates the version of the petitioner’s wife. The date of assault as projected by the Doctor tallies with the statement of the wife of the petitioner, the petitioner and Sri Purna Chandra Nayak. But that aspect of the matter was casually dealt by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack. In a case of custodial torture, a scratch of evidence should embolden the Court to come to an inference when there is silence and no explanation. 42. That apart, it has been stated by Mr. Ray, learned counsel that the inquiry has been conducted after two years of the occurrence. There has been change in the circumstances and the persons who were posted at the Police Station, most of them were transferred. No efforts have been made to examine them. If they were examined, they could have revealed 18 relevant facts relating to the detention of the wife of the petitioner or torture upon her. Even the incumbent IIC of Baselisahi Police Station expressed ignorance in respect of the detention of the petitioner’s wife. It is like denial for defence. It has been stated by Mr. Ray, learned counsel while making the closing statement, that the injury sustained by the wife of the petitioner speaks of the brutality of the inhuman torture by the Police. 43. We have taken the pieces of the materials that have surfaced in the inquiry and reflected in the report of the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, collating with other records including the medical records and we are of the view that the statement of the wife of the petitioner, the petitioner and Sri Purna Chandra Nayak can be trusted for drawing inference about the detention of the petitioner’s wife in the Baselisahi Police Station. The Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack has not given any answer to our query that what happened to the petitioner’s wife for the period from 10.10.2020 to 30.10.2020. It means the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack had totally believed the then IIC of Baselisahi Police Station and failed to take any note of the injury on the person of the petitioner’s wife. 19 44. Moreover, explanation as given in the report by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack fails to shed light on the truth. We have sifted the materials and recorded our observation. 45. We are not inclined to accept the report of the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack in toto, but we have utilized the materials for verification of the rival version. 46. We are of the considered view that the wife of the petitioner was detained by the opposite party No.5 at the Baselisahi Police Station. She was beaten by the police causing serious injuries on the right buttock. 47. It remains still a conundrum that the petitioner’s wife was examined after her arrest on 31.10.2020, but she did not bear any marks of injury. How old injuries were found in a gangrenous state on the right buttock of the wife of the petitioner on the subsequent medical examination. There is no answer in the report. Silence is more eloquent. 48. The medical examination was carried out on 04.11.2020 and it has been stated after examination, the age of the injuries was about 15 days, which come very close to 10.10.2020. The injury report dated 05.11.2020 is available with the record. The report of the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack does not explain this facet. 49. When any occurrence takes place within the four walls of the Police Station, it is very difficult to get any witness, even of the 20 circumstantial for the known reasons. But here, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the petitioner, the petitioner’s wife, Sri Purna Chandra Nayak and the medical report. The petitioner tried to knock the door of justice, without delay. It answers the question relating to the post-occurrence response. Those indicate that the petitioner’s wife was assaulted by the police inside the Baselisahi Police Station on or after 10.10.2020 and she had received the injuries which are reflected in the medical examination report dated 05.10.2020. 50. The Medical Officer’s opinion is very distinct and reliable. As such, we hold that the petitioner’s wife namely Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan was subjected to illegal detention and she had suffered physical torture inside the Baselisahi Police Station. 51. Having observed thus, we direct the Director General of Police, Odisha, Cuttack to start a departmental enquiry against the then Inspector in charge of Baselisahi Police Station, who was posted during the period from 10.10.2020 to 30.10.2020. On the basis of the outcome, the Director General of Police, Odisha shall pass the appropriate order. Such inquiry shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receiving a copy of this order. 52. We would further direct the Director General of Police, Odisha to strictly implement the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)’s 21 recommendation on custodial justice. The Odisha Police shall practise the recommendation of the NHRC which reads inter alia as under: “There should be zero tolerance for violation of human rights in custody, in cases where misconduct or guilt of police personnel is established, it should be ensured that penalties imposed should be commensurate with the misconduct/guilt.” 53. In addition, we direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to the wife of the petitioner namely Rupa @ Snehalata Pradhan within a period of three months from the date when the petitioner will submit a copy of this order, as damages that she has suffered for the physical assault occurred in the Police Station. 54. In the above terms, this writ petition stands allowed. 55. No further orders for costs. 56. A free copy of this Judgment be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner. 57. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, Odisha. (S. Talapatra) Judge Savitri Ratho, J. I agree (Savitri Ratho) Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 17th March, 2023/Subhasis Mohanty, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. I/C Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 21-Sep-2023 13:51:40 Judge