The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.703 of 2025 N. Pravat @ N. Prabhat Kumar Choudhury @ Prabhat Kumar Choudhury …. Petitioner Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate State of Odisha -Versus- …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Swain, AGA CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 20.11.2025 Order No. 01. 1. Heard Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 19th June, 2025 as at Annexure-1 passed in connection with G.R. Case No.94(B) of 2024 by the learned J.M.F.C., Aul arising out of Aul P.S. Case No.63 of 2024 on the grounds stated. 3. Before commencement of hearing of the case, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State requests for an adjournment, however, considering the materials on record and in particular, Annexure-5 series, the Court is inclined to dispose of the revision on merit. 4. On an application moved by the prosecution, the learned court below exercising jurisdiction under Section 319 Page 1 of 5 Cr.P.C. passed the impugned order dated 19th June, 2025 i.e. Annexure-1 arraying the petitioner as an accused for him having committed offences punishable under Sections 406/408/420/467/468/471 read with 34 IPC to be tried along with others. 5. It is informed to the Court by Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioner that two of the co-accused persons have been convicted for the alleged offences in a separate trial. 6. A copy of the order in CRLREV No.312 of 2025 dated 21st August, 2025 is produced by Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in an identical case, the petitioner therein was directed to be discharged where under similar circumstances, the Court concerned had exercised power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 7. Gone through the depositions of the witnesses as at Annexure-5 series. 8. In fact, a report was lodged by the informant and it led to the registration of Aul P.S. Case No.63 dated 20th January, 2024 under the offences alleged and finally, the chargesheet was filed. 9. Perused the copy of the chargesheet as at Annexure-3. At the end of the investigation, the local police submitted the chargesheet against other accused persons and not the petitioner, who has been arrayed as such during and in course of trial. According to the learned Court below, the evidence adduced during trial revealed the involvement of the petitioner Page 2 of 5 in the commission of the alleged offences and hence, exercised the jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. On a proper reading of the depositions of the witnesses at Annexure-5 series, it is made to understand that P.Ws.11 and 12 deposed about the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner. In fact, P.W.11 testified that the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner and others including the convicted accused persons. Furthermore, P.W.13, during and in course of cross-examination, revealed that no incriminating materials could be found against the petitioner in the investigation. The said witness, namely P.W.13 is the I.O. of the case. In absence of any such adverse materials against the petitioner, as it is further made to appear, the learned Trial Court still exercised the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the reason that the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him. In other words, the Court finds that the disciplinary action against the petitioner has triggered the learned court below to invoke the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 10. In Hardeep Singh Vrs. State of Punjab and others (2014) 3 SCC 92, it has been held and observed by the Apex Court that if no chargesheet is filed, to array someone as an accused, a Court shall have to wait till the stage of trial to exercise jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vrs. Ram Kishan Tohtagi and others AIR 1983 SC 67, it is held by the Apex Court that such power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extra-ordinary in nature and hence, to be sparingly exercised and only, if compelling Page 3 of 5 reasons exist for taking cognizance of the offences against any other person, not chargesheeted. 11. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was by then the Branch Manager of the Bank concerned and was not chargesheeted and has been arrayed as an accused in a split-up trial. Considering the settled position of law discussed hereinbefore, the jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only under extra-ordinary circumstances and not routinely and on the drop of a hat upon receiving requisition from the prosecution. A Court exercising any such power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is required to be doubly sure and fully confirmed that the person, who has not been chargesheeted is also involved along with others. Save and except, the depositions of witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 11, 12 and 13, namely, the I.O. of the case to the effect that the petitioner was the Branch Manager of the Bank at the relevant point of time and he has been departmentally proceeded with for the alleged incident. Nothing is on record to show and satisfy that he was directly or indirectly responsible for the alleged withdrawal and for having committed mischief in connivance with the co- accused persons. Perhaps, the learned Court below was influenced by the fact that the petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary action. The Court is of the humble view that mere initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner by itself is not sufficient to exercise powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. unless and until anything adverse or anything incriminating surfaced during the trial. According to the Court, involvement of the petitioner cannot be assumed. On any such Page 4 of 5 ground, the petitioner, a Manager of the Bank by then, is not be roped in merely on surmises and conjecture. There is absolutely no any material on record, on a sincere reading of Annexure-5 series, to reach at any such a conclusion that the petitioner was in fact involved with the co-accused persons in the alleged mischief, hence, as a necessary corollary, the impugned decision by order dated 19th June, 2025 of the learned Court below suffers from legal infirmity and therefore, it shall have to be interfered with. 12. Accordingly, it is ordered. In the result, 13. is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19th June, 2025 at the revision petition Annexure-1 in G.R. Case No.94(B) of 2024 of the learned J.M.F.C., Aul is hereby set aside for the reasons discussed hereinbefore. It is made clear that the learned Court below shall be at liberty to take a view at a later stage, if in case any such evidence is received and under such circumstances, may exercise jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 14. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 21-Nov-2025 17:22:35 Page 5 of 5