Orissa High Court
Md. Seraj Yusha vs State Of Orissa (Vigilance) on 20 June, 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3566 of 2016, CRLMC No.3114 of 2018 & CRLMC
No.3157 of 2018
(In the matter of applications under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
CRLMC No.3566 of 2016
Md. Seraj Yusha ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Orissa (Vigilance)
and Others ....... Opposite Parties
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Senior Advocate
Mr. S.P. Sarangi, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sanjay Das,
Standing Counsel, Vigilance
CRLMC No.3114 of 2018
Vineet Agarwal & another ....... Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Orissa (Vigilance) ....... Opposite Party
For the Petitioners : Mr. B.S. Tripathy 1, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Niranjan Maharana,
Additional Standing Counsel, Vigilance
CRLMC No.3157 of 2018
Omi Bagadiya ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Orissa (Vigilance) & others ....... Opposite Parties
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Senior Advocate
Mr. P.K. Das,Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Niranjan Maharana,
Additional Standing Counsel, Vigilance
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 15.05.2024 : Date of Judgment: 20.06.2024
S.S. Mishra, J.
1. The present proceedings have been drawn invoking inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1974 (Cr.P.C) with prayers to quash the charge sheet No.42
dated 29.09.2014 filed by the respondents under Sections 13(2) r/w
Section 13(1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred as "the P.C. Act") r/w Sections 379/ 467/ 468/ 471/
409/411/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in T.R No. 53 of 2015
pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack,
which is emanating from Vigilance Case No.25 dated 13.04.2010 under
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act.
2. The petitioners have further challenged the validity of the order of
taking cognizance of offences from the aforesaid charge-sheet dated
06.11.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack in
pending T.R. Case No. 53 of 2015.
3. All the three petitions are being decided by way of this common
judgment/order as all of them arise out of a common proceeding i.e. T.R.
Case No. 53 of 2015 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge,
Vigilance, Cuttack.
4. The relevant admitted facts sans unnecessary details for the
purpose of deciding the present petitions are discussed herein below:
The Respondent lodged the F.I.R. No.25 of 2010 P.S. Vigilance,
Cuttack alleging that one Smt. Shantilata Behera, had purchased one 10
wheeler truck under Hypothecation/Lease Agreement with Shriram
Transport Finance Co. Ltd., which was registered with the Registering
Authority (M.V.) Cuttack with Registration No. OR-05-AA-1869
(hereinafter referred as "Offending Vehicle"). Since, Smt. Shantilata
Behera could not pay the monthly installments of repayment of the
vehicle loan, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. took possession of the
offending vehicle and put it on auction to recover the loan amount. One
Susanta Kumar Bal purchased the offending vehicle in the auction and
thereafter sold the offending vehicle to One Surendra Jain of Kolkata
(W.B.).
Shri Surendra Jain brought the offending vehicle to Cuttack for the
purpose of repair and regularization of the papers of the vehicle at RTA,
Cuttack. Shri Surendra Jain stayed at Jasmine Hotel at Cuttack which
was owned by Shri Prasant Kumar Patra (Accused No.1). It is stated in
the F.I.R. that the Accused No.1 in connivance with Sri Dhaneswar
Nayak (Accused No.2), who was posted as Traffic Inspector, Office of
RTO, Cuttack enticed Shri Surendra Jain to get the repair work of the
offending vehicle done at one Chagala Garage at Sikharpur, Cuttack.
When the offending vehicle was taken to the said garage, Accused No.2
suddenly arrived and seized the offending vehicle under the charges of
non-payment of statutory charges/ taxes and on the charge of driving the
vehicle without requisite documents and permits. Exploiting this
situation, Accused No. 1, Mr. Patra struck a deal with Surendra Jain to
purchase the offending vehicle for a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- for
which cheques were issued by Accused no. 1 to Surendra Jain. The said
cheques were dishonored on presentation. When Surendra Jain
confronted with the Accused No.1 about dishonoring of the cheques,
Accused no. 1 asked him to come to Cuttack to take cash in lieu of the
cheques. Once, Surendra Jain came to Cuttack, he got to know that
Accused No.1 was plying the offending vehicle and when Surendra Jain
failed to receive any satisfactory response from Accused No.2 about
plying of the offending vehicle, he reported the same to the Vigilance
Department leading to lodging of the F.I.R. by the respondent Vigilance
Department naming Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 only in the F.I.R.
During the course of investigation, it came to the light that the
offending vehicle which the Accused No.1 was plying in connivance
with the Accused No.2 was used for transporting of Iron Ore Fines from
various places to Paradeep Port for export. The investigation further
revealed that the Transit Passes which were used for the purpose of
transporting the Iron Ore Fines were forged and the said Transit Passes
were never issued by the Mining Department.
The petitioners herein are Directors/Partners of Exporter
Company/ firms of Iron Ore Fines and they allegedly purchased/
procured Iron Ore Fines from Intermediaries' Companies/firms and
received the Iron Ore Fines at Paradeep Port. The said Intermediaries
firms have used the offending vehicle and forged transit passes to
transport the Iron Ore fines to Paradeep Port. The relevant details of
alleged instances of transportation of the Iron Ore Fines to the
petitioner's company/firms are extracted in tabulated form hereinbelow:-
Transit Pass T.P. Name of Consigner Name of Name of
No. Book Consignee Career owner
No.
A025109 25157 M/s Jay Iron & Steel M/s GNG Bajrangbali
(Forged Ltd. Exports Roadways,
Transit Pass) Rourkela.
A025139 -do- -do- -do-
(Forged 25158
Transit Pass)
T.R Chemical Ltd. Bagadiya
A024918 Brothers (P)
(Forged Ltd.
Transit Pass)
A024910 30624 Scan Steel Ltd. F. Serajuddin Om Transport
(Forged Exports Pvt.
Transit Pass) Ltd.
A474001 2590 -do- -do- P Patra
(Forged
Transit Pass)
After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid down
by the investigating authorities under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (c)
(d) of the P.C. Act, r/w Sections379/467/468/471/409/411/120-B of IPC,
against 11 persons including the present petitioners as accused. The
specific role attributed to the petitioners herein are discussed as under:-
5. The Petitioners in CRLMC No. 3114 of 2018 namely Shri Vineet
Agarwal and Shri Prakash Agarwal have been arrayed as Accused No. 8
and Accused No.9 respectively in the aforesaid charge-sheet. The role
attributed to the aforesaid accused persons in the charge-sheet is that
M/s. G.N.G. Export-202 Lords 7/1, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata - 700071
a partnership firm dealing with export of Iron Ore fines. The partners of
the said firm are Shri Praveen Agarwal, aged about 38 years, S/o. Late
Gajanan Agarwal, Shri Veenet Agarwal, aged about 33 years, S/o. Late
Gajanan Agarwal and Smt. Geeta Agarwal, W/o. Late Gajanan Agarwal
of 2/1 ANB Bardwan Road, Kolkota. Shri Prakash Agarwal, DOB-
04.05.1981, S/o. Sri Rambhagat Agarwal of 5/7/Bara Shrutala Road,
Kolkota 38 is the Manager of GNG Exports. The investigation revealed
that GNG Exports has received a quantity of 45.480 M.T. of Iron Ore
fines from one M/s. Jay Iron and Steel Ltd. vide Transit Permit bearing
Transit Pass No.A-025109 Book No.25157 dtd. 4.2.2010 showing
transportation of the said quantity of Iron Ores fines through Truck
No.0R-05AA-1869. Similarly, the said firm had received a quantity of
42.820 M.T. of Iron ore fines from the consigners M/s. Jay Iron and steel
Company Ltd. vide Transit Permit bearing No. A-025139, Book No.
25158 dtd. 9.2.2010 through the same truck. But the investigation
revealed that both the Transit Passes were forged transit pass as informed
by the Dy. Director, Mines, Rourkela that no Transit Pass Book bearing
Transit Pass No.A025109 and A- 025139 issued to M/s. Jay Iron & Steel
Ltd. The handwriting expert also opined that the said two Transit Passes
are forged. But from the daily unloading report maintained by their
Stevedores M/s. J.N. Buxi it was found that on 07.02.2010 they have
received a quantity of 45.480 M.T. of Iron Ore fines through Transit Pass
No. 025109 and Truck No.0R-05 AA-1869.
6. The Petitioners in CRLMC No.3157 of 2018 namely Omi Bagadiya
has been arrayed as Accused No.10 in the aforesaid charge-sheet. The
role attributed to the aforesaid accused person in the charge-sheet is that
M/s. Bagadiya Brothers is a Private Ltd. Company having its
Registration No.U5110107 2002 PTC 022248 and its Head Office at
Bagadiya Mansion, Ground Floor, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur, Chhatisgarh.
The Directors of the Company are Shri Omi Bagadiya, aged about 50
years, S/o. Late Kishore Lal Bagadiya, 2) Om Prakash Agarwal, 3) Shri
Prakash Raheja, 4) Shri Ananda Agarwal and 5) Mr. Anurag Agarwal.
The Area Manager of M/s. Bagadiya Brothers is Shri Sanjay Bansal,
DOB-1.7.1974, S/o. Late Jayaprakash Bansal of KK-42 Civil Township,
Rourkela, Tel. No.9937046047, who is actually looking after the export
of Iron ore fines. The investigation revealed that the said company has
received a quantity of 38.360 M.T. of Iron Ore Fines vide Transit Pass
Book No. as A-024918 and the said quantity of Iron Ore was transported
from T.R. Chemicals Ltd., Barpali to the said company at Paradip Port.
Shri Sanjay Bansal failed to produce any invoice showing purchase of
such quantity from T.R. Chemicals. But the record of their Stevedores
clearly shows that a quantity of 38.360 M.T. of fines was unloaded by
them at Paradip Port which was subsequently exported. The Dy.
Director, Mines, Rourkela during investigation clearly stated that no
such Transit Pass Book bearing Transit Pass No.A-024918 has been
issued to T.R. Chemicals. Further, the handwriting expert's opinion
revealed that the said transit pass is a forged one.
7. The Petitioner in CRLMC No. 3566 of 2018 namely Md. Seraj
Yusha has been arrayed as Accused No. 4 in the aforesaid charge-sheet.
The role attributed to aforesaid accused person in the charge-sheet is that
M/s. F. Serajuddin Exports Private Ltd. is a registered company dealing
with Export of Iron Ore from Paradeep Port incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its Corporate Identity No.U131000R2007
PTC 009611 2007-2008 and its address is Plot No.N-2/158, IRC Village,
Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. The Directors of the said company are (1)
Sheraj Yusha, S/o M. Yusha of N/4/135 IRC Village, Nayapalli,
Bhubaneswar and the others. The investigation revealed that during the
month of March 2010 i.e. the company had received Iron Ore Fines of
39.220 M.T. from M/s. Scan Steel Ltd. vide Transit Pass
No.2590/25/2010 and Pass No.A-4740001 which were issued on
8.3.2010 and also received 40.220 M.T. of Iron Ore Fines from M/s.
Scan Steel Ltd. vide Transit Pass No.2590/25.2.2010 and Pass No.A-
024910 which was received by the said company on 15.03.2010. During
the investigation, both the Transit Passes found to be forged as
ascertained from the Deputy Director Mines Office, Rourkela that such
books bearing the aforementioned two Transit Pass Nos. were never used
to M/s. Scan Steel Ltd. Further the handwriting opinion has also been
received that both the Transit Passes are forged. Further during
examination, Shri N. Seraj, Managing Director of F. Serajuddin Exports
(P) Ltd. could not able to produce any invoice of M/s. Scan Steel Ltd.
showing sale of such quantity to them. The Iron Ore Fines received
through such forged Transit Passes has been exported by the said
company and thereby earned pecuniary gain.
The much could be said regarding the casual manner in which the
investigation has been carried out although the petitioner namely Md.
Seraj Yusha is implicated in the present case as Directors of the
Company but he has been shown to be a public servant.
8. Perusal of the charge-sheet further indicates certain other facts
contained in the charge-sheet which are necessary to be discussed for
holistic approach to decide the issue in lis. The opposite parties have
relied upon the documents as well as the statements of the witnesses to
indicate that M/s. Scan Steel Ltd. has sold the Iron Ore Fines to M/s JBS
Energy, Paradeep on account of M/s F. Serajuddin Exports Pvt. Ltd.
using the offending vehicle for the purpose of transportation of the Iron
Ore and the payment has also been made by the M/s JBS Energy to M/s
Scan Steel Ltd. M/s. F. Serajuddin Exports Pvt. Ltd. has also made the
agreement with M/s. JBS Energy for supply of Iron Ore Fines. Similarly,
M/s Jay Iron & Steel Ltd. sold and transported Iron Ore Fines to M/s.
GNG Exports, M/s T. R. Chemical sold and transported Iron Ore Fines
to M/s. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd.
9. It is very much clear from the above narrated facts that the
accused/petitioners are Directors/Partners/Managers of the export
companies/firms, which have purchased Iron Ore Fines from other
traders, who have transported the Iron Ore Fines and delivered the same
using the offending vehicle to Paradeep Port.
10. At this juncture, it is important to consider Rule 10 of the Orissa
Minerals (Prevention of Theft, Smuggling and Illegal Mining and
Regulation of Possession, Storage, Trading and Transportation) Rules
2007 which provides that any person who is transporting the minerals
need to apply and obtaining transit permits from the Competent
Authority after complying with the requisite conditions. Admittedly, the
petitioners are not the transporters or sellers of the Iron Ore. They are
consignee of the Iron Ore, who took the delivery at Paradeep Port from
the seller/transporters. As per the prosecution's own story the Officials
of the respective transporter have admitted that they have transported
Iron Ore. It is important to take note of the fact that despite long drawn
investigation the respondents have not been able to collect the material to
implicate the sellers/transporters and therefore, none of the transporters
have been arrayed as accused in the charge-sheet.
11. Interestingly, the investigation remained inconclusive about who
has transported the Iron Ore Fines by using the offending vehicle under
the forged Transport Permits, although the name of the drivers who have
transported the Iron Ore have been mentioned by the respondent in their
charge-sheet. Apart from that, another crucial factor to be considered is
that the prosecution has arrayed officials of M/s. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd.,
M/s. T.R. Chemical Ltd. and M/s Scan Steel Ltd. as witnesses, who have
admitted in their statements that their Companies have transported the
Iron Ore Fines to Paradeep Port at storage yards of respective Companies
of the petitioners. Moreover, the charge-sheet also does not disclose any
material to connect the petitioners with Accused No.1 or 2, who are
alleged to have the possession of the offending vehicle during the
relevant period. The prosecution only relies on the fact that the export
Companies/Firms received the Iron Ore Fines at Paradeep Port being
transported by the offending vehicle, which in considered opinion of this
Court is not enough to prosecute the accused petitioners.
12. The other very important aspect of the case is that all the exports
have been done by companies or firms who have been managed by
various other individuals in their respective capacity as Directors/
Partners/Managers. The opposite parties have implicated only the
petitioners as accused. The opposite parties have neither implicated the
company nor other individuals although in the charge-sheet itself, the
names of other Directors/Partners are found mentioned. The charge-sheet
is further silent about the overt acts of omission or commission
attributable to the petitioners.
13. Therefore, it is to be tested as to whether in the facts of the present
case the petitioners could be prosecuted under the principles of vicarious
liability.
14. It has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the
opposite parties that whether the petitioners used forged Transit Passes
for the purpose of transportation of the Iron Ore is a matter of trial.
However, in the considered opinion of this Court issue of petitioners
using forged Transit Permits would arise only, if it is prima facie proved
by the opposite parties that the petitioners were required to procure the
Transit Permits in the first place and that the petitioners themselves have
transported the Iron Ore by using forged documents. The Investigating
Agency has completely failed to bring any material in that regard.
15. The charge-sheet fails to whisper about any overt act of the
petitioners in transportation of the Iron Ore Fines other than stating that
they received the Iron Ore Fines at Paradeep Port. The charge-sheet does
not bring out iota of evidence to establish any kind of nexus of the
petitioners or for that matter the Companies/ Firms in which the
petitioners are Directors/Partner/Manager either with the drivers of the
truck or with the transport Companies, neither the charge-sheet attempts
to show any relationship between the petitioners and the Accused No.1
or Accused No.2.
16. On the canvas of aforementioned fact scenario illuminating on the
record the parties are heard on the issue regarding criminal liabilities of
the petitioners.
17. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners by relying
upon various provisions of MMDR Act and Companies Act have
contended that from the allegation made by the prosecution and the
material available on record even if taken on its face value no mens rea
could be attributable to the petitioners being the Directors/ Partner/
Manager of the Companies/Firms to which the Iron Ore was transported.
The petitioners have strongly relied upon the judgment of the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court passed in Crl. M.P. No.1238 of 2018 titled as "Smt.
Geeta Devi Agarwal and others Vs. State of Orissa" to substantiate the
aforementioned point. To buttress their argument regarding the criminal
liability of the Director in the case of similar nature they have also relied
upon the judgment in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. CBI reported in
(2015) 4 SCC 609. Learned Senior Counsels have emphasized on the
paragraphs-42 and 43 of the said judgment which reads as under:
(iii) Circumstances when Director/person in charge of the affairs of the
company can also be prosecuted, when the company is an accused person
42. No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through
its officers, Directors, Managing Director, Chairman, etc. If such a company
commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and
action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company. It would be
more so, when the criminal act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same time,
it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious
liability unless the statute specifically provides so.
This extract is taken from Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI,: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 687
: 2015 SCC OnLine SC 18 at page 638
43. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence
on behalf of a company can be made an accused, along with the company, if
there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent.
Second situation in which he can be implicated is in those cases where the
statutory regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically
incorporating such a provision.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon para 9 of
the judgment of Hon'ble Suprme Court in "Sham Sundar Vs. State of
Haryana reported in (1989) 4 SCC 630" which reads as under:
"9. But we are concerned with a criminal liability under penal provision and not a
civil liability. The penal provision must be strictly construed in the first place.
Secondly, there is no vicarious liability in criminal law unless the statute takes
that also within its fold. Section 10 does not provide for such liability. It does not
make all the partners liable for the offence whether they do business or not."
While relying upon Muksud Sayed vs. State of Gujrat reported in
(2008) 5 SCC 668, the learned counsel emphasized on para 13 :
"13. Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms
of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
Magistrate is required to apply his mind. The Penal Code does not contain
any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing
Director or the Directors of the Company when the accused is the
Company. The learned Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct
question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value
and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the
respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. The Bank is a
body corporate. Vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director
would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute.
Statutes indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious
liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the
complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the
provisions constituting vicarious liability."
18. On the strength of the ratio of aforementioned judgment, learned
Senior Counsels have contended that the petitioners cannot be made
vicariously liable even if the Company is involved in the alleged crime.
However, in the instant case, even if the prosecution story is taken as it is
Directors of the Companies cannot be made as an accused.
19. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer made
by the petitioners and has contended that in view of the complicated
facts involved in the case, it is inevitable to subject the petitioners to trial
so as to separate grain from the chaff. Therefore, the learned counsels
submit at this stage, while exercising the plenary jurisdiction, this Court
should not scuttle the trial. To buttress their arguments, learned Counsels
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Karnataka vs. J. Jayalalitha reported in (2017) 67 OCR (SC)
796. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"the concept of corporate entity was evolved to encourage and
promote trade and commerce and not to commit crime or defraud
people and thus when the corporate character is employed for the
purpose of committing illegality of defrauding others, the court
ought to ignore the corporate character and scan the reality
behind the corporate veil so as to enable it to pass appropriate
orders to do justice between the parties."
By relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in AIR 1998 (SC) 1128, UP Polution Control Board vs. Modi
Industries and others., the counsel for the opposite parties contends that
the petitioners are trying to hide behind corporate veil. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in the said judgment has held that:
"it would be travesty if a big business house of M/s Modi
Industries ltd. is allowed to defeat the prosecution launched and
avoid the trial on technical flaws which is curable for their
alleged deliberate and willful breach of provisions contained in
Section 25(1) and 26 made punishable under section 44 read with
47 of the Act."
20. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned Counsels
for the opposite parties is that, if a crime is committed by any Partner or
Member or Director of a Firm/Company, they should not be allowed to
hide behind corporate veil rather which is oppose to public policy,
therefore, corporate veil in such case is liable to be pierced.
21. In principle the contentions raised by both the parties are correct,
however, in the instant case that is not the test. The petitioners have
invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, inter alia stating that no
case is made out against the petitioners even if the evidence collected
and relied upon by the investigating agency are taken on its face value
to be true. On the basis of the said test, I have gone through the charge-
sheet and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the
petitioners. The evidences so collected are disjuncting the petitioners'
role in the commission of the crime. The investigation is completely
jumbled up and not an iota of evidence is brought on record to rope the
petitioners in the present case. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the
case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the principle laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, wherein it is held
that if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation
of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal case. Therefore, in the aforementioned circumstances
subjecting the petitioners to trial in the present case would be a futile
excise in the absence of any material available on record against them.
22. In that view of the matter, subjecting the petitioners to trial on the
strength of the available material would be a futile exercise on the part of
prosecution. Therefore, while exercising the jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I am inclined to quash the criminal
proceedings initiated by the prosecution. However, quashing of the
criminal prosecution against the petitioners on the available material as
of today shall not preclude the learned Trial Court to invoke section 319
Cr.P.C in the event materials comes on record against the petitioners
during the course of trial.
23. Accordingly, all the three petitions are allowed and the charge-
sheet No.42 dated 29.09.2014 filed by the opposite parties under Section
13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (c) (d) of the P.C. Act, r/w Sections 379/ 467/
468/ 471/ 409/411/120-B of IPC in T.R. No.53 of 2015 pending before
the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack, which is
emanating from Vigilance Case No.25 dated 13.04.2010, under Section
13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act and the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners in all the three cases
are quashed.
..................
S.S. Mishra
(Judge)
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 20th June, 2024/ Subhasis Mohanty, Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 13-Jul-2024 11:47:08
