The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3628 of 2023 An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Ashok Kumar Sahu …. Petitioner State of Orissa (Vig.) …. Opp. Party -versus- Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode : For Petitioner : Mr. D.P. Pattnaik, Advocate For Opp. Party : Mr. N. Moharana, Additional Standing Counsel (Vigilance) CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing : 23.04.2025 and 03.09.2025 Date of Judgment : 23.12.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Savitri Ratho, J. This CRLMC has been filed challenging the order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack (in short “CJM”) in Vig. G.R Case No. 54(A)/1997 rejecting the CRLMC No. 3628 of 2023 Page 1 of 18 submission of the petitioner that as he had faced trial for the offences under Sections 7 & 9 of the Essential Commodities Act ( in short “EC Act”) and had been acquitted on the same set of facts, he could not face trial for the offences under Section 468,471,477-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and for which the proceeding should be dropped as the provision of under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973 ( in short “Cr.P.C.”). BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 2. The prosecution allegations are that on 17.05.2009 at 11.30 am the then Inspector of Vigilance, Kendrapara along with other staffs of Vigilance visited the premises of the accused situated at Mangalpur under Mohakalapada Block for a surprise check. As the godown was closed, the accused was called and he opened the godown. During checking, 68 tags of wheat and 197 bags of rice were found inside the godown and the stock and price declaration board kept inside the godown did not display the stock position or the rate. The accused could not produce the stock and issue registers and he stated that he had taken them to his house for maintenance. He could not produce the licence and he stated to have submitted it for renewal. The wheat and rice were weighed and weighment chart and memorandum was CRLMC No. 3628 of 2023 Page 2 of 18 prepared. The wheat came to be 35.0 Kgs and the rice to 189.12 Kgs. The stock and price declaration board and the stock of wheat and rice were seized and given in zima of the accused. The accused subsequently produced the stock and issue registers which were also seized. When the stock was tallied with the book balance of the stock and issue registers, it was found that the signatures of the retail dealers did not tally with the signatures appearing in the issue register maintained by the accused and hence F.I.R. was lodged by P.W.1 on 26.05.1997 at the Vigilance Police Station, Cuttack leading to registration of a case at the Cuttack Vigilance Police Station. During investigation, specimen signatures and handwritings of the retail dealers were collected and sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with the signatures appearing in the issue registers and for opinion. On completion of investigation, charge sheet dated 16.10.1998 was submitted against the petitioner for commission of offences Sections 7 and 9 of the EC Act for violating Clause 14 of Orissa Wheat and Wheat Product Control Order, 1988 and Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities order, 1973 and u/s.468/471/477-A of I.P.C in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack. The case was transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara as Special Court CRLMC No. 3628 of 2023 Page 3 of 18 for taking cognizance. Supplementary chargesheet dated 24.11.1998 was submitted against the petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 468, 471, 477-A of the IPC. 3. The petitioner faced trial in Vig. G.R. Case No. 54 of 1997 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara for the commission of offences under Section 7 and 9 of the EC Act. Charge was framed against the petitioner under Sections 468,471,477-A of the IPC on 11.03.2002 in Vig. G.R. Case No. 54(A) of 1997 and summons directed to be issued to the witnesses fixing 11.04.2022 for recording of their evidence. Fourteen witnesses had been examined by the prosecution and thirty five documents had been exhibited by the prosecution which included the tally register, weighment chart, opinion of the handwriting expert, signatures and specimen signature of the witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed the following points for determination:- “(i) Whether the accused was selling controlled commodities in black market by forging the signatures of the retail dealers in the issue register ? and (ii) Whether he did not display the stock position and the prices in the Stock and Price Declaration Board.” CRLMC No. 3628 of 2023 Page 4 of 18 4. By judgment dated 18.12.2001, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the petitioner under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the charges under Section 7 and 9 of the EC Act. The learned trial court also declared it as mistake of fact.
Legal Reasoning
5. CRLLP No. 99 of 2023 arising out of GCRLA No. 76 of 2003 filed by the State praying for grant of leave was dismissed by this Court on 14.11.2007. 6. In the midst of cross-examination of P.W.1, the petitioner filed an application on 05.07.2023, with a prayer to drop the proceeding as Section-300 of the Cr.P.C. was violated as he had already been acquitted on the same set of facts. IMPUGNED ORDER 7. After hearing the submissions of the counsel, on 20.07.2023 the learned CJM, Cuttack rejected the application of the petitioner to drop the proceeding holding that the petitioner had earlier faced trial for offences under the EC Act. The offences for which he was facing trial now were under the IPC more specifically offences for manufacturing forged documents which are distinct and different. So Section-300 CRLMC No. 3628 of 2023 Page 5 of 18 Cr.P.C would not be a bar for him to face trial for the offences under the IPC. 8. While entertaining this CRLMC, by order dated 17.08.2023, this Court had permitted the petitioner to move an application for adjournment in the learned trial court in view of the pendency of the
Legal Reasoning
CRLMC before this Court. It has been stated by the learned counsel that proceedings in the trial court have been stayed since then. SUBMISSIONS 9. I have heard Mr. D. P. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Moharana, learned Addl. Standing Counsel (Vigilance). I have gone through the FIR, the judgment dated 18.12.2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the petitioner, impugned order dated 20.07.2023 and the written note of submissions and the decisions relied on by the learned counsel. 10. Mr. D.P. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the offences may be different but since the factual matrix in both the cases is the same and the petitioner is the sole accused, Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. will be attracted for which the petitioner cannot be made to fresh trial in the subsequent case. He CRLMC No. 3628 of 2023 Page 6 of 18 submitted that chargesheet dated 16.10.1998 and chargesheet dated 24.11.1998 , arise out of the same FIR and the same transaction and both chargesheets had been submitted in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate prior to 23.03.1999, when Vigilance G.R. Case No. 54 of 1997 was transferred . Thereafter the petitioner faced trial in a competent Court and was acquitted. In view of the provisions of Section 300 of the Cr.P.C, he cannot be made to face trial after all these years on the same allegations. He relied on the following decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court in support of his submissions:- (i) Santosh Kumar Sahoo vs. State of Orissa in CRLREV No. 164 of 2016 decided on 30.11.2016 (ii) Mitra Sankar Nanda vs. State of Orissa in Criminal Revision No. 252 of 2002 decided on 05.05.2010 (iii) Kolla Veera Raghav Rao vs. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao