The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3983 of 2022 Laxman Kumar Pradhan & another …. Petitioners Mr. D.P. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opp. Parties Mr. N. Moharana, S.C. (Vigilance) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 13.10.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1. Heard learned counsels for both the Parties. 2. By means of this application the Petitioners seek to quash the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore in T.R. No.05 of 2021 wherein the application for discharge of the Petitioners was rejected by the learned court. 3.
Facts
The background facts of the case are that the Petitioner No.1, entered into the Govt. Service on 08.12.1986, as a Forester, under the DFO, Wild Life Division, Chandbali and later promoted to the post of Forest Range Officer, wherein he worked in different places and further promoted to the post of Asst. Conservator of Forest on 27.09.2018. A vigilance raid was conducted in the house of the Petitioners for alleged accumulation of the property disproportionate to his known source of income during the check period from 08.12.1986 to 31.12.2019. It is alleged that the Petitioner No.1, intentionally enriched himself illicitly by acquiring and possessing assets, disproportionate to his known source of Income and his wife abetted the act by acquiring portion of disproportionate property and for so doing, the Lokayukta vide letter No.270/LY, dated 21.09.2021, in LY Case No.30/2014, directed an inquiry to be taken up by the Vigilance Department, Orissa and accordingly, the DSP, Vigilance, Balasore Division, submitted a written report before the S.P, Balasore, Vigilance Division, on 29.02.2020 alleging that Petitioner No.1, Laxman Kumar Pradhan found to have enriched himself illicitly being in illegal possession of assets worth of Rs.73,55,211/-, disproportionate to his known source of income of Rs.56,45,375/- during his service period. Accordingly, the Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.13 of 2020 (29.02.2020) for the offences under Section 13(1)(b) r/w. Sections 13(2) & Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 was registered and investigation was undertaken. CRLMC No.3983 of 2022 Page 2 of 16 Upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted to the effect that during the check period as aforestated, the Petitioner No.1 was found in possession of assets worth of Rs.29,91,739.34/- in his name and in the name of his family members, disproportionate to his known source of income which he could not account for satisfactorily. The Petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment made by the Vigilance and the submission of the charge sheet, moved the learned court for his discharge on the ground that the investigating officer has omitted to consider the material part of the income of the Petitioner and even the expenses of their children besides the income in calculating the D.A. so also the stipend received by his daughter to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- during her MBBS study and the sum of Rs.16,90,921/- in respect to the stipend by his son for his P.G. study and that the investigating officer has arrived at an erroneous calculation. The learned court having heard the parties and considering the ground for discharge of the Petitioner from the offences alleged arrived at the conclusion that the aforesaid aspect of the D.A., the educational expenditure so also the stipend received by his daughter and son have been taken onto account while calculating the income of the Petitioner and the CRLMC No.3983 of 2022 Page 3 of 16 calculation, arrived at by the Vigilance in course of the investigation, is inclusive of all that the Petitioner claimed to have not been included and as such, there is ample of material to proceed against the Petitioners to frame the charge in order to face the trial. 4.
Legal Reasoning
learned court below has taken the prima facie case of the Petitioner before arriving at the conclusion that there are materials against the Petitioners to face the trial and there is absolutely no illegality committed by the learned court in rejecting the prayer. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective Parties and more particularly, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, admittedly the learned counsel for Petitioners has pointed to certain calculations sought to have been admitted and omitted by the vigilance in course of the investigation. The documents referred to by the leaned counsel for the Petitioners in course of the hearing in this application, CRLMC No.3983 of 2022 Page 5 of 16 runs through pages which requires an adjudication of the matter only in course of trial, as the documents need to be brought on record through evidence. This itself goes to show that there is material against the Petitioner to face the charge so that his contentions both in respect to the factum of inclusion of assets and income of the Petitioner No.2, the wife, as well as the son and daughter can be well appreciated and therefore, there is ample of material against both the Petitioners to frame the charge. On the contrary, the record placed by the investigating agency along with the charge sheet prima facie shows that if they are taken at their face value it discloses all the ingredients of disproportionate income from the known source of income of the Petitioners. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts emerging from the contentions raised by the respective Parties as above, it cannot be said that the Petitioners are liable to be discharged since the Court is not required to make a roving enquiry into pros and cons of the matter and weighing the evidence as if the trial is being conducted. Even otherwise, the allegations with regard to the disproportionate assets from the known source of income is a subject matter which cannot be decided at the outset CRLMC No.3983 of 2022 Page 6 of 16 without conducting a full-fledged trial as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsingh Kishorinh Rao, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294. In the said matter the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: - “7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on basis of charge sheet material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the is no sufficient ground for charge. If proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that accused has committed then is necessarily charge has to be framed. 8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. The trial court has to the offence which triable, there CRLMC No.3983 of 2022 Page 7 of 16 apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet material only. 9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the chargesheet material at the stage of framing the charge which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at that stage. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only and therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced by the accused before the I.O. 10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Suresh Rajan And Others (2014) 11 SCC 709 adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid down on this subject has held: record by “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 CRLMC No.3983 of 2022 Page 8 of 16 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.” 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 CRLMC No.3983 of 2022 Page 9 of 16 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 to conviction at the conclusion of trial. ××× 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: record would certainly lead “27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 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 in exercise of quashing of charge either jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: CRLMC No.3983 of 2022 Page 10 of 16 and very sparingly inherently improbable 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 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 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. 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court CRLMC No.3983 of 2022 Page 11 of 16 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti- corruption vs. N. Suresh Rajan and others, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 709 has further held as follows:- that at “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 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 this stage, the alleged offence. At constituting 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 to be conviction. In our opinion, what needs CRLMC No.3983 of 2022 Page 12 of 16 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.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in the matter of P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs. State reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 558, has also clarified as under: 12. In P. Nallamal (Supra), it was contended before this Court that an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act cannot be abetted by a non-public servant. Further, that there is no provision in the 1988 Act which provides punishment for abetment of offence under section 13(1)(e) whereas it provides punishment for abetment of some other offences under the 1988 Act. However, after discussing the history of Section 13 of the 1988 Act which was a substitute for some of the provisions of Chapter-IX of IPC which deals with offences by or relating to public servants, this Court held that an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act can be abetted by any other person. After reading Section 107 of IPC and accepting suggestions of Counsel, this Court gave illustrations that how even a person who is not a public servant can abet the offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. The relevant paragraphs are as follows: cited “24. Shri Shanti Bhushan certain illustrations which, according to us, would amplify the cases of abetments fitting with each of the three clauses in Section 107 of the Penal Code vis-a-vis Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. The first illustration cited is this: If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of how CRLMC No.3983 of 2022 Page 13 of 16 other public servants have become more wealthy by receiving bribes and A persuades the public servant to do the same in order to become rich and the public servant acts accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot be any doubt that A has abetted the offence by instigation. Next illustration is this: Four persons including the public servant decide to raise a bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons prompt the public servant to keep such money in their names. If this is a proved position then all the said persons are guilty of abetment through conspiracy. The last illustration is this: If a public servant tells A, a close friend of his, that he has acquired considerable wealth through bribery but he cannot keep them as he has no known source of income to account, he requests A to keep the said wealth in A’s name, and A obliges the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved position A is guilty of abetment falling under the “Thirdly” clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code. 25. Such illustrations are apt examples of how the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act can be abetted by non-public servants. The only mode of prosecuting such offender is through the trial envisaged in the PC Act.” (Emphasis Provided) 13. In other words, any person who persuades a public servant to take bribes, decides to raise money through bribes along with a public servant and prompts such public servant to keep the wealth with him/her or keeps the amassed wealth of a public servant in his/her own name is guilty of committing the offence of abetment of offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. We must also note that the 2018 Amendment to the 1988 Act has substituted Section 12 of 1988 Act and made all offences under the 1988 Act abettable. CRLMC No.3983 of 2022 Page 14 of 16 acquired appellant’s husband has This Section 12 of 1988 Act reads as follows: “12. Punishment for abetment of offences.—Whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act, whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” In any case, there is no doubt that offence under section 13(1)(e) was abettable even prior to the 2018 Amendment. 14. In the case at hand, it is an admitted position that the assets (disproportionate to his income), during the check period, in appellant’s name. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings on this aspect, and it is not required for us to deal with that aspect in detail. 15. If we apply the principles laid down in the P. Nallammal case (supra), the present appellant’s case would definitely fall either in the 2nd or 3rd illustration. It is not clear from the record whether the appellant and her husband entered into a prior conspiracy to amass a huge bulk of wealth through bribery, but that after such disproportionate wealth was amassed, the appellant has been actively involved in concealing such wealth by keeping assets in her name. By doing so, the appellant is undoubtedly guilty of offence of abetment falling under section109 IPC read with 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. Moreover, we would like to note that even the appellant was a public servant at the time of commission of the offence, as she was holding the post of Assistant Superintendent in the Chennai Port Trust, though she has been prosecuted here in her capacity as the wife of the main accused. We would also like to note that the appellant’s argument that she is no longer the wife of co-accused as the co-accused has remarried, has no force because at the time of commission of offence, she was the wife of the co- accused. Even if we assume that she was not the wife at the time of commission of crime, then also it is immaterial since it is proven that she had allowed the there is no doubt CRLMC No.3983 of 2022 Page 15 of 16 coaccused to accumulate assets in her name and thus, assisted the co-accused in accumulation of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. It is a well settled law that even a non-public servant can be convicted under section 109 IPC read with 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. We, therefore, find no reason to hold that the appellant could not have been convicted under section 109 IPC read with 13(2) and13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. 10.
Arguments
The learned counsel for the Petitioners in course of the hearing in this appeal, reiterated the aforesaid ground and took this Court through various documents purportedly to have not been taken into account not only in respect to the income of the Petitioner but also the accumulation of the property by his son and daughter as well as his wife. Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argued that the calculation arrived at by the investigating agency, on the face of document produced along with the investigation record found grossly discrepant and if are taken to account, the Petitioner cannot be held to have accumulated disproportionate property alleged against him. He further submitted that there is no material in the case record prima facie to implicate the Petitioner No.2, the wife of the Petitioner for having abated the crime and as such, the learned court below has erred in law in rejecting the CRLMC No.3983 of 2022 Page 4 of 16 prayer of the Petitioners to discharge from the offences alleged against them. 5. Mr. Moharana, the learned counsel for the State (Vigilance), on the other hand, submitted that the contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners with regard to amount of the income added to that of the Petitioner excludes those to have come from the sources of the son and daughter received in connection with their stipend, all such income as well as the expenditure has been dealt with by the vigilance in great detail and the
Decision
In view of the above discussions and the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the impugned order but to hold the same to be in accordance with law. Hence, ordered. 11. The impugned order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore stands confirmed and the CRLMC is dismissed being devoid of merit. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 14-Oct-2025 16:10:46 CRLMC No.3983 of 2022 Page 16 of 16