The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3493 of 2024 Rama Chandra Jena …. Petitioner Mr.Jagamohan Pattanaik, Advocate State of Odisha (Vigilance) & others -versus- …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr.N.Maharana, ASC, Vigilance CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 28.10.2024 1. In the present case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Misc. Case No.115 of 2024, whereby his application under Section 457 of the Cr. P.C. to defreeze the Bank Account No.30671002772 of the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Collectorate Campus, Cuttack has been turned down. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CRLMC No.3710 of 2023 under Section 482 Cr. P.C. assailing Page 1 of 5 Order No. 01. the Office Order dated 21.05.2023, whereby the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Cuttack requested the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, District-Cuttack to defreeze the Account of the petitioner subject to certain condition. 3. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.07.2024 in CRLMC No.3710 of 2023 had passed the following order: “xxxxxx 3. This 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed challenging letter dated 21.05.2023 under Annexure-6 to the application whereunder a request has been made to the Opposite Parties to de-freeze the Bank Account of the present Petitioner which has been attached in question with the present Vigilance case. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placing reliance on order dated 26.04.2022 passed in CRLMC No.1142 of 2021 in the case of Nibedita Patel vs. State of Odisha (Vigilance) submitted that in an identical matter, this Court has held that the account cannot be the mandatory frozen, procedure as provided under Section 18-A of the P.C. Act has not been followed in a case. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted the mandatory procedure of Section 18-A of P.C. Act and Section 102 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed by the Investigating Agency. the present case also that in if 4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Dept. on the other hand contended that the present application is not maintainable in view of the fact that the Petitioner has not approached the trial court first before approaching this Court. He further submitted should have approached the learned trial court by filing an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. the Petitioner that 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, on careful consideration of the materials on record and further keeping in view the order passed by this Court in Nibedita Patel’s case (supra), this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present application by granting liberty to the Page 2 of 5 petitioner to approach the Trial Court by filing an appropriate application within two weeks from today. In the event, such application is filed, the learned trial court shall do well to dispose of the same within a period of two weeks thereafter by passing a speaking and reasoned order. It is open to the Petitioner to take all the grounds available to him along with investigation and rely upon the judgment in support of his contention including the case which has been referred to hereinabove.” 4. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the learned trial Court has now passed the impugned order. 5. I have perused the impugned order. It appears from the impugned order that the learned trial Court while relying upon the report of the Investigating Officer of the case, has disposed of the application without dealing with the judgment of this Court in the case of Nibedita Patel vs. State of Odisha (Vigilance) in CRLMC No.1142 of 2021 and other relevant judgments. The learned trial Court, inter alia, has observed as under: for collecting “04. On perusal of case record, it is seen that the petitioner has been entangled in Cuttack Vigilance Cell case No.07 of 2021 illegal gratification of Rs.5 lakhs from different applicants and beneficiaries in the land related matter and the vigilance sleuths near his intercepted by government quarter located at Nimapara and thereafter, simultaneous house searches were conducted by the vigilance team. On 2.11.2021, the residential government quarter of the petitioner was searched and during search, number of documents and articles including the bank passbook of SBI, Main Branch, Collectorate, Cuttack having account No.30671002772 were recovered and seized by the vigilance team. On perusal of the case record, it is seen that one report was called for from the IO of this Page 3 of 5 case regarding requirement of freezing of the sought bank account for the purpose of further investigation of the case. In that respect, the IO has complied the direction of this Court and reported that the sought bank account being the salary account of the petitioner, the letter was placed with the Chief Manager of SBI, Main Branch, Cuttack to defreeze the said bank account and to allow the petitioner to operate the same by keeping the balance intact as on the date of house search i.e. 2.11.2021. Hence, on the basis of the report of the IO and submissions made by the petitioner, the IO is directed to defreeze the bank account No.30671002772 of the petitioner maintained at SBI, Main Branch, Collectorate Campus, Cuttack after keeping the balance laying in the account intact as on the date of house search i.e. on 2.11.2021 for the purpose of the case and instruct the bank concerned accordingly.” 6. Mr. Maharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite parties-Vigilance Department vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. I am unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Maharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Vigilance Department, as the learned trial Court has not dealt with the matter, keeping in view the judgments of this Court and the relevant provision occupying the field. 8. Therefore, the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Misc. Case No.115 of 2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court to deal with the matter in accordance with the order dated 10.07.2024 passed Page 4 of 5 by this Court in CRLMC No.3710 of 2023. 9. In view of the long pendency of the application and this being the second round of litigation on behalf of the petitioner on the same cause, it would be expedient that, the learned trial Court shall dispose of the application of the petitioner within four weeks. 10. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Judge (S.S. Mishra) Subhasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 29-Oct-2024 10:30:33 Page 5 of 5