The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.866 of 2025 Rukman Meher …. Petitioner Mr. H.S. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opp. Party Mr. Sangram Das, S.C. Vigilance Department CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 10.12.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1. The legality, propriety, and correctness of the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Bargarh in C.T.R. Case No. 20/34 of 2022/2024, whereby the learned court refused to discharge the Petitioner, has been called into question. 2.
Facts
The background facts of the case, in brief, are that the Petitioner, while serving as the Executive Officer of the NAC, Bijepur in the district of Bargarh, is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification. According to the prosecution, the complainant, namely Dr. Madan Meher, had engaged his Bolero Plus vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-17P-6918 on hire by the NAC, Bijepur on a monthly rent of Rs. 28,000/-. It is alleged that the Petitioner, being the Executive Officer of the NAC, Bijepur, along with the CRLREV No.866 of 2025 Page 1 of 11
Legal Reasoning
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much-advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.” 14. This Court in the aforesaid judgement has also laid down principles to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 particularly in the context of prayer for quashing of charge framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C. is sought for as under: “27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 CRLREV No.866 of 2025 Page 8 of 11 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: 27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. CRLREV No.866 of 2025 Page 9 of 11 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.” 15. The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and it is not legally permissible. The High Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that trial court was dealing with an application for discharge.” 8. The materials available at this stage, namely, the recitals in the FIR, the complainant’s version, the accompanying witness’s statement, and the subsequent events on the date of the trap, prima facie indicate that the conduct of the Petitioner had a proximate nexus to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Whether the inference ultimately drawn is correct or whether the Petitioner is able to establish his innocence are matters that can be determined only upon a complete appreciation of evidence during trial. At this stage, however, the contention that no material exists to connect the Petitioner with the alleged acts cannot be accepted. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, and bearing in mind the limited scope of consideration at the stage of discharge, this Court is of the considered opinion that the evaluation undertaken by the learned court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality, impropriety, or material irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. The contentions urged on behalf of the Petitioner pertain to matters of defence, which can only be CRLREV No.866 of 2025 Page 10 of 11 adjudicated upon an appreciation of evidence during trial and not at the threshold stage of discharge. 10. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present revision petition, and the same stands dismissed. The learned trial court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein, which have been rendered solely for the purpose of examining the correctness of the order under challenge.
Arguments
Accountant, Sri Manas Kumar, demanded Rs. 2,000/- per month as bribe in respect of the vehicle engaged by the NAC. As the rent for the month of April 2020 remained pending, the complainant requested the Petitioner to release the payment; however, the Petitioner instructed him to speak with the Accountant. When the complainant thereafter approached the Accountant, he demanded Rs. 14,000/- towards illegal gratification for the period from October 2019 to April 2020 @ Rs. 2,000/- per month, stating that the cheque towards the rent for April 2020 would be issued only upon such payment. Finding no alternative, the complainant unwillingly agreed to meet the Accountant’s illegal demand. Being aggrieved, he reported the matter to the Vigilance authorities seeking legal action. Upon receiving the complaint, the Vigilance police registered an FIR and prepared to lay a trap. After completing the mandatory formalities, including demonstration and application of phenolphthalein powder to the G.C. notes, the raiding party proceeded to the NAC Office, Bijepur on 19.05.2020. On the Accountant’s demand, the complainant, in the presence of the accompanying witness, paid the bribe money to the Accountant, Sri Manas Kumar Dash. Upon receiving the said sum of Rs. 14,000/-, the Accountant retained Rs. 12,000/- with him and instructed the complainant to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the Executive Officer. Following such instruction, the complainant went to the chamber of the Executive Officer (the Petitioner herein) to offer Rs. 2,000/-, but shortly thereafter returned and handed over the said amount to the Accountant, as the Executive Officer allegedly advised him to give the entire money to the Accountant. Thereafter, the trap team CRLREV No.866 of 2025 Page 2 of 11 conducted verification. The hand-wash of the Accountant, when dipped in the chemical solution, turned pink. The tainted G.C. notes were recovered from the drawer of the Accountant, and necessary seizures were effected. Upon completion of investigation, it was revealed that the Petitioner, in collusion with the Accountant, had committed criminal misconduct as public servants by demanding Rs. 14,000/- from the complainant for releasing the hire charges of the Bolero Plus vehicle for April 2020. Both were found to have committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, assailing the impugned order, submitted that the learned court, while rejecting the Petitioner’s prayer for discharge from the alleged charges, failed to apply its judicial mind and did not properly appreciate the distinct nature of duties assigned to the Petitioner and the Accountant. According to Mr. Mishra, the allegations in the FIR, the charge-sheet, as well as the statements of witnesses, do not contain even a whisper implicating the Petitioner in the alleged demand for bribe. It is further submitted that there is no material to show that the tainted money was ever touched by the Petitioner. Thus, the impugned order, according to him, stands vitiated by consideration of extraneous factors. It is contended that the learned court, while declining the Petitioner’s prayer, did not examine the matter in light of the settled legal principles governing discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. or the factual matrix emerging from the record. Hence, the impugned order warrants interference and deserves to be set aside. CRLREV No.866 of 2025 Page 3 of 11 4. Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the State (Vigilance), on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner. He contended that the grounds urged for discharge are matters of defence, and in the absence of any prima facie material exonerating the Petitioner, the learned trial court rightly declined to accede to his request for discharge. He further submitted that the Petitioner has already faced trial upon being charged with the alleged offences, and that the statements of the complainant as well as the accompanying witness clearly indicate that the Petitioner had directed the complainant to deal with the Accountant and to pay him the demanded amount. This, according to learned counsel, unmistakably points to the Petitioner’s complicity in the alleged demand for illegal gratification. It is further argued that the bill in question was sanctioned soon after the tainted money was received by the Accountant, and the conduct of the Executive Officer, when confronted by the complainant regarding the Accountant’s demand, sufficiently demonstrates that without the Petitioner’s endorsement, the Accountant could neither have insisted upon such demand nor proceeded with the processing of the bill for approval and release. In essence, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order rejecting the Petitioner’s prayer for discharge is wholly justified, both on facts and in law, and therefore warrants no interference. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon a careful perusal of the case record, this Court finds that there exists prima facie material to implicate the Petitioner in the alleged offence, either directly or by way of abetment, in relation to CRLREV No.866 of 2025 Page 4 of 11 the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. At the stage of considering an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C., the Court is required only to assess whether the materials on record disclose grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, and not to embark upon a meticulous evaluation of the evidence, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption vs. N. Suresh Rajan and Others, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 709, as follows: - “29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.” 6. In the present case, the FIR indicates that when the complainant approached the Petitioner-Executive Officer with a CRLREV No.866 of 2025 Page 5 of 11 grievance that the Accountant was refusing to release the bill for April 2020 unless his demand for ₹14,000/- was satisfied, the Petitioner directed him to deal with the Accountant. In the normal course of administrative functioning, the Executive Officer, being the supervisory authority, was expected to address such a complaint or at least enquire into it. Instead, the direction to “speak with the Accountant” not only failed to resolve the complainant’s grievance but also provided the Accountant an opportunity to persist with the alleged demand for illegal gratification. This conduct, at the threshold stage, assumes significance in assessing the Petitioner’s knowledge and involvement. Further, as revealed in the narration of the FIR and the complainant’s statement, on the day of the trap when the complainant paid ₹14,000/- to the Accountant, he was informed that ₹2,000/- out of the total amount was intended for the Executive Officer. Although the Petitioner did not personally receive the said amount, the complainant has stated that the Executive Officer advised him to hand over the entire amount to the Accountant. This circumstance, when taken cumulatively with the prior events, gives rise to a reasonable inference that the Petitioner was aware of the demand and participated in facilitating the acceptance of illegal gratification by the Accountant. The mere fact that the tainted money was not recovered from the possession of the Petitioner does not ipso facto exonerate him at this stage. The law is well settled that direct receipt of the bribe is not the sole mode of attracting liability, and that participation, facilitation or any act that furthers the demand can amount to abetment under the Prevention of Corruption Act. CRLREV No.866 of 2025 Page 6 of 11 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294, has held as follows:- “11. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged. The expression “the record of the case” used in Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. 12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima-facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP Vs. Mohan Lal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of prima-facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial. 13. The power and jurisdiction of Higher Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chandra (2012) 9 SCC 460 where scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained as under: CRLREV No.866 of 2025 Page 7 of 11 “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. that in mind
Decision
The CRLREV is hence, disposed of. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Sarbani Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 11-Dec-2025 19:42:01 CRLREV No.866 of 2025 Page 11 of 11