[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Kamalakanta Dangua & vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) .... Opposite ... on 10 December, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
AFR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No. 885 of 2025
Kamalakanta Dangua & .... Petitioner
Petitioners
Another
Mr. A. Tripathy,
Tripathy Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vig.) .... Opposite Party
Mr. Sangram Das, S.C.
S.C
For Vigilance Department
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE
BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 10.12.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to set
aside the impugned order dated 04.09.2025, passed by the learned
Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore, in S.T. Case No. 4 of 2025,
arising out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 58 of 2015, as
annexed under Annexure-1,
Annexure 1, and to allow the petition filed by the
Petitioners
ers for their discharge.
2. The background facts of the case are that the Inspector of
Vigilance, Balasore, filed a written report stating that Mandari
College, Basudevpur, Bhadrak,
Bhadrak, received provisional affiliation and
concurrence for the subjects of English, Political Science, and
Economics for the academic year 1987-88.
1987 88. According to the college
records, Miss Satirani Mohanty, Bijnandarshani Mohapatra, and
Rajendra Rout were appointed
appointed as lecturers in English, Political
Science, and Economics, respectively, on 28.07.1988. In this
connection, the college issued an advertisement and received
applications from three candidates. On 18.07.1988, an interview
was conducted at Mandari College
College in the presence of the President
of the Governing Body, Sri Dolagovinda Bindhani, and a subject
expert, whose identity could not be ascertained during the enquiry
due to the production of fabricated documents. The applicants i.e.
Miss Satirani Mohanty, Bijnandarshani
Bijnandarshani Mohapatra, and Rajendra
Kumar Rout are shown to have attended the interview. The
interviewing committee purportedly selected Miss Satirani Mohanty
as Lecturer in English, Bijnandarshani Mohapatra as Lecturer in
Political Science, and Sri Rajendra
Rajendra Rout as Lecturer in Economics,
issuing appointment letters on 20.07.1988, and they are recorded as
having joined on 28.07.1988. Subsequently, on 01.09.1988, the
Governing Body passed a resolution regarding their joining. Miss
Satirani Mohanty resigned on 05.09.1991, Bijnandarshani
Mohapatra on 04.07.1991, and Rajendra Rout on 10.03.1990, citing
better opportunities. Their resignations were accepted by Sri
Madhabananda Mallik, Secretary, and they were relieved on
03.08.1991 (Miss Mohanty and Ms. Mohapatra)
Mohapatra) and 09.04.1990
(Sri Rout), following acceptance by the Governing Body.
Thereafter, fresh interviews were conducted for the vacant
posts: on 05.04.1990 for Economics, resulting in the selection of Sri
Rajendra Kumar Rout; and on 25.07.1991 for English and
a Political
Science, resulting in the selection of Sri Sushanta Mohapatra and
Sri Kamalakanta Dangua, respectively. However, no record of any
advertisement for these posts was available in the college records or
the personal files of the concerned lecturers.
lecturers. The interviews were
conducted by Sri Dolagovinda Bindhani, President of the
Governing Body, Sri Krupasindhu Mohanty, Principal, and subject
experts. Sri Kamalakanta Dangua received his appointment on
06.04.1990, Sri Sushanta Mohapatra on 09.04.1990, and
an Sri
Rabindra Kumar Muduli on 30.08.1991, joining in their respective
posts in place of the earlier appointees. The enquiry revealed that
Miss Satirani Mohanty had joined as Lecturer in English at
Charampa Mahavidyalaya, Bhadrak, on 26.04.1987; Bijnandarshani
Bijnandars
Mohapatra as Lecturer in Political Science at Jaleswar Women's
College on 21.04.1982; and Sri Rajendra Rout as Lecturer in
Economics at Patitapaban Mahavidyalaya, Sainkul, on 28.05.1989,
and they continued in those institutions during the relevant period.
per
This was confirmed by the Principals
rincipals of the respective colleges. As
such, the postings and joining of Miss Satirani Mohanty,
Bijnandarshani Mohapatra, and Rajendra Rout at Mandari College
with effect from 28.07.1988 to 03.08.1991, 28.07.1988 to
03.08.1991,
1991, and 28.07.1988 to 01.04.1990, respectively, appear to
be false. The Petitioners also disowned their signatures on the
joining letters, resignation letters, attendance registers, and
acquaintance registers.
The Petitioners submit that no lecturers in English, Political
Science, and Economics were posted at Mandari College from
28.07.1988 until the joining of Sri Kamalakanta Dangua, Sri
Sushanta Mohapatra, and Sri Rabindra Kumar Muduli. Vide letter
No. 4711 dated 14.10.1996, the Director of Higher Education,
Educa
Bhubaneswar, received a proposal from the Secretary of Mandari
College, Sri Madhabananda Mallik, recommending the allotment of
GIA to fifteen teaching and non-teaching
non teaching staff. However, officials
of the Directorate of Higher Education,
Education Sri Prakash Kumar
Kuma Mishra,
Sri Rama Krushna Panda, and Sri Pradipta Kishore Bhanja failed to
properly scrutinissee the documents and erroneously accepted forged
documents in favour of the ineligible candidates, resulting in a
government loss of approximately Rs. 90,00,000/-.
90,00,000/
Based on these allegations, Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case
No. 58 of 2015 was registered, and upon completion of
investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet
charge sheet against the
present Petitioners under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Sections 468, 471, and 34
of the IPC.
After submission of the Charge-Sheet,
Charge Sheet, the Petitioner moved
an application before the learned trial court under Section 227 r/w.
Section 239 of Cr.P.C. praying to discharge the Petitioners,
Petition whereas
the learned court vide order dated 04.09.2025 declined to allow the
prayer and rejected the submission of the learned counsel for the
Petitioners. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned
trial court, the Petitioner moved herein.
3. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, in the
course of hearing, submitted that the Petitioners are not aware as to
how Miss Satirani Mohanty, Bijnandarshani Mohapatra, and
Rajendra Rout entered the service of Mandari College as Lecturer
in English,
glish, Lecturer in Political Science, and Lecturer in
Economics, respectively, prior to the Petitioners joining their posts.
By the time the Petitioners were appointed, the records concerning
the alleged joining of the aforesaid three persons had already been
b
maintained. It was further submitted that the said persons had
disowned their signatures on the joining letters, had resigned from
their respective posts, and, therefore, any continuity of the above-
above
mentioned posts from 28.07.1988 until the date of joining
joi of the
Petitioners is legally unsustainable and cannot be attributed to the
Petitioners. The Petitioners contended that the college management,
along with other officials, might have been involved in
manufacturing or falsifying documents to secure Government
Gov aid
and misappropriate public funds. Learned counsel further submitted
that the Petitioners joined their respective posts pursuant to an
advertisement and interview held on 25.07.1991 and 03.08.1991,
and have continued in their posts lawfully until their retirement.
They had no knowledge of the prior appointments or the alleged
irregularities and had no involvement in the management of the
college prior to their appointment. According to Mr. Tripathy, none
of the ingredients of the offences alleged against the Petitioners are
made out; the charge-sheet
charge sheet was submitted on the basis of mere
suspicion and conjecture, and therefore, it does not withstand the
test of law and deserves to be quashed.
4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned counsel for the State (Vigilance),
(Vigilance)
on the other hand, vehemently opposed the contentions advanced by
the learned counsel for the Petitioners. He submitted that the
alleged joining of Miss Satirani Mohanty, Bijnandarshani
Mohapatra, and Rajendra Rout is apparent on the face of the
records, notwithstanding that, at the relevant time, they were
employed elsewhere. He further contended that the Petitioners,
having entered service at a later stage, were aware that the posts had
been advertised initially, and by putting their signatures in the
records
ecords showing the posts to have continued prior to their
engagement, they allegedly facilitated the college in claiming
eligibility for grant-in-aid
grant aid benefits, thereby purportedly deriving
advantage therefrom.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs.
Rao reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao,
1294,, has held as follows:-
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
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
prima facie case, and
at this stage, the probative value of materials on record
need not be gone into. ThisThis 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-
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 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
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.
Chand (2012) 9 SCC 460 where scope of
Ramesh Chandra
Section 397 has been considered and succinctly
explained as under:
"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
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
exhaustive classes, but are
merely indicative. Each case would have to be
determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted
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 O of
the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against
an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to
keep in mind that 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
framing of charge is
a much-advanced
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
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
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 ofof 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
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
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
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
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 should be more
inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather
than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court
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."
6. In the instant case, the submissions advanced by
b Mr.
Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, primarily pertain to
matters of defence, which the Petitioners are entitled to raise and
argue during the course of the trial. As rightly observed in Dilipsinh
Kishorsinh Rao (Supra), a revisional court is not to sit in the place
of the trial court or act as an appellate forum to re-appreciate
re
evidence. It is confined to examining whether the impugned order
suffers from any illegality, irregularity, or perversity.
7. It is evident from the record that the allegations
allegations are
supported by documentary evidence, including the clear report of
the handwriting expert, which links the fingerprints and
handwriting of the Petitioners to the entries allegedly made in the
attendance and acquaintance registers. These prima facie
f findings
suggest the possible involvement of the Petitioners in the alleged
irregularities.
8. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order, which
declined to allow the Petitioners' prayer for discharge from the
allegations, cannot be found to be erroneous
erroneous or unsustainable. The
order satisfies the test of law, and the materials on record indicate
that the ingredients of the offences are prima facie established.
Accordingly, no interference is warranted in impugned order dated
04.09.2025, passed by the learned
learned Special Judge (Vigilance),
Balasore, in S.T. Case No. 4 of 2025.
2025. As a result, the CRLREV
stands dismissed.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Bijay
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
