High Court of Orissa
Case Details
AFR IN THE HIG E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 885 of 2025 Kamalakanta D Another a Dangua & …. Petitioners P Mr. A. Tripathy athy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha ha (Vig.) …. Oppo pposite Party Mr. Sangram For Vigilance De gram Das, S.C. nce Department CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 10.12.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. By means means of this application, the Petitioners ners seek to set aside the impugne pugned order dated 04.09.2025, passed by ed by the learned Special Judge (Vi ge (Vigilance), Balasore, in S.T. Case No. e No. 4 of 2025, arising out of Ba of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 58 o . 58 of 2015, as annexed under An der Annexure-1, and to allow the petition f ition filed by the Petitioners for thei or their discharge. 2. The backg
Facts
background facts of the case are that the I t the Inspector of Vigilance, Balaso alasore, filed a written report stating tha ng that Mandari College, Basudevp sudevpur, Bhadrak, received provisional aff al affiliation and concurrence for t for the subjects of English, Political Sc cal Science, and Economics for the or the academic year 1987-88. According to ing to the college records, Miss Sat ss Satirani Mohanty, Bijnandarshani Moha Mohapatra, and Rajendra Rout we out were appointed as lecturers in Englis English, Political CRLREV No.885 of of 2025 Page 1 of 10 Science, and Eco d Economics, respectively, on 28.07.198 07.1988. In this connection, the c the college issued an advertisement an nt and received applications from from three candidates. On 18.07.1988, an 88, an interview was conducted at ted at Mandari College in the presence of th e of the President of the Governing
Legal Reasoning
he revisional limited one nner. One of ot be against Court has to f revisional tice ex facie. uestion as to perly and in , it may be ts revisional falls within of charge is gs under the 14. This C down prin his Court in the aforesaid judgement has als principles to be considered for exerci has also laid exercise of CRLREV No.885 of of 2025 Page 7 of 10 jurisdiction of prayer f 228 Cr.P.C iction under Section 397 particularly in the c ayer for quashing of charge framed under S r.P.C. is sought for as under: n the context nder Section “27. Ha 27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction diction under hese two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Sectio these tw Section 482 f the Code and the fine line of jurisdi of the jurisdictional distinct istinction, now it will be appropriate for us to r us to enlist he principles with reference to which the the pri h the courts hould exercise such jurisdiction. However, it should ver, it is not nly difficult but is inherently impossible to only di ible to state ith precision such principles. At best and with pr st and upon of this Court, bjective analysis of various judgments of this objectiv nciples to be e are able to cull out some of the principles we are jurisd jurisdiction, onsidered for proper exercise of conside charge either articularly, with regard to quashing of charge particul tion 397 or n exercise of jurisdiction under Section 3 in exer the case may ection 482 of the Code or together, as the cas Section be: owers of the 7.1. Though there are no limits of the powers 27.1. T the more the ourt under Section 482 of the Code but the mo Court u on is to be ower, the more due care and caution is power, he power of xercised in invoking these powers. The pow exercise cularly, the quashin uashing criminal proceedings, particularly of the Code harge framed in terms of Section 228 of the charge and with should hould be exercised very sparingly and rest of rare circums ircumspection and that too in the rarest o ases. cases. 7.2. The Court should apply the test as to w 27.2. T the unc uncontroverted allegations as made fro ecord of the case and the documents sub record herewith prima facie establish the offence or therewi the alle he allegations are so patently absurd and inhe mprobable that no prudent person can ever improb uch a conclusion and where the basic ingredie such a criminal offence are not satisfied then the a crimi ay interfere. may int s to whether e from the ts submitted ce or not. If d inherently ever reach ngredients of en the Court 7.3. The High Court should not unduly interfe 27.3. Th meticul eticulous examination of the evidence is need onsidering whether the case would end in conv conside r not at the stage of framing of charge or qu or not a f charge. of charg interfere. No is needed for in conviction or quashing CRLREV No.885 of of 2025 Page 8 of 10 7.9. Another very significant caution that the 27.9. A ave to observe is that it cannot examine the have to vidence and materials on record to dete evidenc hether there is sufficient material on the ba whethe hich the case would end in a conviction; the c which t oncerned primarily with the allegations take concern whole w hole whether they will constitute an offence so, is i o, is it an abuse of the process of court lead njustice. injustic at the courts ne the facts, o determine the basis of ; the court is s taken as a fence and, if rt leading to eption to the 27.13. 7.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception he offence is ule of continuous prosecution. Where the offe rule of ld be more ven broadly satisfied, the Court should be even b cution rather inclined nclined to permit continuation of prosecution urt is not than its han its quashing at that initial stage. The Court iew to decide xpected to marshal the records with a view to expecte dmissibility and reliability of the docume ocuments or admissi acie.” ecords but is an opinion formed prima facie.” records 15. The rev and start inconsisten legally per cognizant o application he revisional court cannot sit as an appellate start appreciating the evidence by findin sistency in the statement of witnesses and it ly permissible. The High Courts ought izant of the fact that trial court was dealing w cation for discharge.” pellate court finding out and it is not ught to be ling with an 6. In the ins he instant case, the submissions advance dvanced by Mr. Tripathy, learned arned counsel for the Petitioners, primarily marily pertain to matters of defence efence, which the Petitioners are entitled t itled to raise and argue during the co the course of the trial. As rightly observed i rved in Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao ao (Supra), a revisional court is not to sit i to sit in the place of the trial court court or act as an appellate forum to re to re-appreciate evidence. It is con is confined to examining whether the impu impugned order suffers from any il any illegality, irregularity, or perversity. 7. It is evid evident from the record that the alleg legations are supported by docu y documentary evidence, including the clea e clear report of the handwriting riting expert, which links the fingerprints and fingerp handwriting of the of the Petitioners to the entries allegedly m edly made in the CRLREV No.885 of of 2025 Page 9 of 10 attendance and ac nd acquaintance registers. These prima fac ma facie findings suggest the possib possible involvement of the Petitioners in ers in the alleged irregularities. 8. In view o iew of the foregoing, the impugned or ed order, which declined to allow allow the Petitioners’ prayer for discharg scharge from the allegations, cannot cannot be found to be erroneous or unsusta nsustainable. The order satisfies the es the test of law, and the materials on reco n record indicate that the ingredien redients of the offences are prima facie e facie established. Accordingly, no in , no interference is warranted in impugned gned order dated 04.09.2025, passe passed by the learned Special Judge ( dge (Vigilance), Balasore, in S.T. S.T. Case No. 4 of 2025. As a result, the lt, the CRLREV ssed. stands dismissed. (Chittaranjan Das Judge Dash) Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 11-Dec-2025 17:05:57 CRLREV No.885 of of 2025 Page 10 of 10
Arguments
rning Body, Sri Dolagovinda Bindhani, an ni, and a subject expert, whose iden se identity could not be ascertained during uring the enquiry due to the product roduction of fabricated documents. The app he applicants i.e. Miss Satirani Mo ni Mohanty, Bijnandarshani Mohapatra, an ra, and Rajendra Kumar Rout are are shown to have attended the inter interview. The interviewing comm committee purportedly selected Miss Satiran Satirani Mohanty as Lecturer in En in English, Bijnandarshani Mohapatra as ra as Lecturer in Political Science, a ence, and Sri Rajendra Rout as Lecturer in E rer in Economics, issuing appointme intment letters on 20.07.1988, and they are y are recorded as having joined on ed on 28.07.1988. Subsequently, on 01.09 01.09.1988, the Governing Body p ody passed a resolution regarding their joi eir joining. Miss ohanty Satirani Mohanty resigned on 05.09.1991, Bijn Bijnandarshani Mohapatra on 04.0 n 04.07.1991, and Rajendra Rout on 10.03.1 0.03.1990, citing better opportuniti rtunities. Their resignations were accept accepted by Sri Madhabananda M da Mallik, Secretary, and they were r ere relieved on 03.08.1991 (Miss (Miss Mohanty and Ms. Mohapatra) and ) and 09.04.1990 (Sri Rout), followi Body. ollowing acceptance by the Governing Body Thereafter, eafter, fresh interviews were conducted for ed for the vacant posts: on 05.04.19 .04.1990 for Economics, resulting in the sele e selection of Sri Rajendra Kumar R mar Rout; and on 25.07.1991 for English a lish and Political Science, resulting ulting in the selection of Sri Sushanta Moh a Mohapatra and Sri Kamalakanta D anta Dangua, respectively. However, no rec no record of any advertisement for t nt for these posts was available in the college college records or the personal files l files of the concerned lecturers. The interv interviews were CRLREV No.885 of of 2025 Page 2 of 10 conducted by S by Sri Dolagovinda Bindhani, Preside resident of the Governing Body, ody, Sri Krupasindhu Mohanty, Principal, cipal, and subject experts. Sri Kam Kamalakanta Dangua received his appoi appointment on 06.04.1990, Sri Sri Sushanta Mohapatra on 09.04.1990 4.1990, and Sri Rabindra Kumar M umar Muduli on 30.08.1991, joining in their n their respective posts in place of t ce of the earlier appointees. The enquiry re uiry revealed that Miss Satirani Mo ni Mohanty had joined as Lecturer in r in English at Charampa Mahavi ahavidyalaya, Bhadrak, on 26.04.1987; Bijn 7; Bijnandarshani Mohapatra as Lec as Lecturer in Political Science at Jaleswar leswar Women’s College on 21.04 21.04.1982; and Sri Rajendra Rout as L t as Lecturer in Economics at Pati at Patitapaban Mahavidyalaya, Sainkul, on 2 l, on 28.05.1989, and they continued ntinued in those institutions during the relev e relevant period. This was confirme nfirmed by the Principals of the respective c ctive colleges. As such, the postin postings and joining of Miss Satirani atirani Mohanty, Bijnandarshani Mo ani Mohapatra, and Rajendra Rout at Mand Mandari College with effect from from 28.07.1988 to 03.08.1991, 28.0 , 28.07.1988 to 03.08.1991, and 2 and 28.07.1988 to 01.04.1990, respectively ctively, appear to be false. The Pet he Petitioners also disowned their signatu ignatures on the joining letters, r ters, resignation letters, attendance regi registers, and acquaintance regis e registers. The Petitio Petitioners submit that no lecturers in Englis English, Political Science, and Eco d Economics were posted at Mandari Co ari College from 28.07.1988 until until the joining of Sri Kamalakanta D nta Dangua, Sri Sushanta Mohapat ohapatra, and Sri Rabindra Kumar Muduli. uduli. Vide letter No. 4711 dated 1 ated 14.10.1996, the Director of Higher igher Education, Bhubaneswar, rece r, received a proposal from the Secretary etary of Mandari College, Sri Madh Madhabananda Mallik, recommending the a g the allotment of GIA to fifteen tea en teaching and non-teaching staff. Howeve owever, officials CRLREV No.885 of of 2025 Page 3 of 10 of the Directorate torate of Higher Education, Sri Prakash Kum h Kumar Mishra, Sri Rama Krushna rushna Panda, and Sri Pradipta Kishore Bhan e Bhanja failed to properly scrutinis se the documents and erroneously accep y accepted forged documents in fav in favour of the ineligible candidates, res s, resulting in a government loss o loss of approximately Rs. 90,00,000/-. Based on d on these allegations, Balasore Vigilance ilance P.S. Case No. 58 of 2015 2015 was registered, and upon com completion of investigation, the , the police submitted a charge-sheet a heet against the present Petitioners tioners under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1) 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention o ntion of Corruption Act, and Sections 468, 4 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC. After subm r submission of the Charge-Sheet, the Petitio Petitioner moved an application befo on before the learned trial court under Sectio Section 227 r/w. Section 239 of Cr. of Cr.P.C. praying to discharge the Petition titioners, whereas the learned court v court vide order dated 04.09.2025 declined t lined to allow the prayer and rejecte rejected the submission of the learned coun d counsel for the Petitioners. Being Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of er of the learned trial court, the Peti e Petitioner moved herein. 3. Mr. Tripat Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petition etitioners, in the course of hearing, aring, submitted that the Petitioners are not re not aware as to how Miss Satira Satirani Mohanty, Bijnandarshani Moha Mohapatra, and Rajendra Rout ent ut entered the service of Mandari College llege as Lecturer in English, Lect Lecturer in Political Science, and L nd Lecturer in Economics, respec respectively, prior to the Petitioners joining ining their posts. By the time the Pe the Petitioners were appointed, the records cords concerning the alleged joining joining of the aforesaid three persons had al had already been maintained. It wa It was further submitted that the said p said persons had CRLREV No.885 of of 2025 Page 4 of 10 disowned their sig eir signatures on the joining letters, had res ad resigned from their respective po tive posts, and, therefore, any continuity of ity of the above- mentioned posts f osts from 28.07.1988 until the date of joi of joining of the Petitioners is lega s legally unsustainable and cannot be attrib attributed to the Petitioners. The Pe The Petitioners contended that the college m ege management, along with othe en other officials, might have been involved in in manufacturing or ng or falsifying documents to secure Gov Government aid and misappropriate opriate public funds. Learned counsel furthe further submitted that the Petitione titioners joined their respective posts purs s pursuant to an advertisement and nt and interview held on 25.07.1991 and 0 and 03.08.1991, and have continue ntinued in their posts lawfully until their their retirement. They had no know o knowledge of the prior appointments or ts or the alleged irregularities and s and had no involvement in the managem nagement of the college prior to the r to their appointment. According to Mr. Trip r. Tripathy, none of the ingredients ients of the offences alleged against the Pet he Petitioners are made out; the cha he charge-sheet was submitted on the bas he basis of mere suspicion and con d conjecture, and therefore, it does not wi not withstand the test of law and des nd deserves to be quashed. 4. Mr. Sangra Sangram Das, learned counsel for the State ( State (Vigilance), on the other hand, hand, vehemently opposed the contentions a tions advanced by the learned couns counsel for the Petitioners. He submitte bmitted that the alleged joining ning of Miss Satirani Mohanty, Bijn Bijnandarshani Mohapatra, and R and Rajendra Rout is apparent on the f the face of the records, notwithst twithstanding that, at the relevant time, time, they were employed elsewhe lsewhere. He further contended that the t the Petitioners, having entered ser ed service at a later stage, were aware that th that the posts had been advertised i ised initially, and by putting their signatu signatures in the records showing wing the posts to have continued prio d prior to their CRLREV No.885 of of 2025 Page 5 of 10 engagement, they , they allegedly facilitated the college in lege in claiming eligibility for gra or grant-in-aid benefits, thereby purportedl portedly deriving advantage therefro erefrom. 5. The Hon’ Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of G of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishors horsinh Rao, reported in 2023 SCC O CC OnLine SC 1294, has held as f ld as follows:- “11. The de at the stage expression Cr.P.C. is t if any, prod give any rig the stage of accused is t investigatin The defence of the accused is not to be looke stage when the accused seeks to be discharge ssion “the record of the case” used in Sectio .C. is to be understood as the documents and a y, produced by the prosecution. The Code do any right to the accused to produce any docum tage of framing of the charge. The submission sed is to be confined to the material produced tigating agency. looked into charged. The Section 227 and articles, ode does not document at ission of the duced by the 12. The pri charge is th at this stag need not b earlier deci Nath Thap Mohan La of evaluati framing of facie case. charge, the the existen offence all probative v whether the conviction he primary consideration at the stage of fram e is the test of existence of a prima-facie cas is stage, the probative value of materials on not be gone into. This Court by referring r decisions in the State of Maharashtra Vs hapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of M n Lal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the aluation to be made by the court at the st ing of the charge is to test the existence of case. It is also held at the stage of fram e, the court has to form a presumptive opin existence of factual ingredients constitutin ce alleged and it is not expected to go dee ative value of the material on record and to her the material on record would certainly l iction at the conclusion of trial. f framing of cie case, and ls on record erring to its a Vs. Som of MP Vs. ld the nature the stage of ce of prima- framing of e opinion to stituting the go deep into nd to check ainly lead to 13. The po Section 397 to call for a the purpos regularities The object or an error The power and jurisdiction of Higher Court on 397 Cr.P.C. which vests the court with the ll for and examine records of an inferior cour urposes of satisfying itself as to the legali arities of any proceeding or order made in a object of this provision is to set right a patent error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity Court under ith the power r court is for legality and de in a case. patent defect ersity which CRLREV No.885 of of 2025 Page 6 of 10 has crept i refer to the Ramesh C Section 39 explained a rept in such proceedings. It would be appo to the judgment of this court in Amit Kapo h Chandra (2012) 9 SCC 460 where sco on 397 has been considered and suc ined as under: apposite to apoor Vs. ere scope of succinctly 12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court w “12. Se power ower to call for and examine the records nferior court for the purposes of satisfying it inferior o the legality and regularity of any proceedi to the l order m rder made in a case. The object of this provi o set right a patent defect or an error of jurisd to set r r law. There has to be a well-founded error or law. ay not be appropriate for the court to scrutin may no orders, rders, which upon the face of it bears a to areful consideration and appear to be in acco careful with law ith law. If one looks into the various judgme this Co his Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisd an be invoked where the decisions under cha can be are gro re grossly erroneous, there is no complianc he provisions of law, the finding recorded is the pro n no evidence, material evidence is igno on no is exercised arbitrari udicial discretion judicial erversely. These are not exhaustive classes, b pervers erely indicative. Each case would have merely etermined on its own merits. determi ourt with the cords of an ying itself as oceedings or provision is f jurisdiction error and it scrutinise the s a token of n accordance judgments of l jurisdiction er challenge pliance with ded is based ignored or bitrarily or sses, but are have to be that 13. Ano 3. Another well-accepted norm is that the rev urisdiction of the higher court is a very limite jurisdic nd cannot be exercised in a routine manner. O and can the inbu he inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be a n interim or interlocutory order. The Court an inte the exercise of rev in mind i eep keep urisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex jurisdic here the Court is dealing with the question Where hether the charge has been framed properly whethe accorda ccordance with law in a given case, it m reluctan eluctant to interfere in exercise of its rev urisdiction unless the case substantially falls jurisdic the cate he categories aforestated. Even framing of ch a much much-advanced stage in the proceedings und rPC.” CrPC.”