Orissa High Court
Chittaranjan Senapati vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) .... Opp. ... on 3 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.474 of 2025
Chittaranjan Senapati .... Petitioner
Ms.Subhashree
Sen, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vigilance) .... Opp. Party
Mr.Niranjan
Maharana,
ASC, Vigilance
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 03.02.2025
01.
1. Heard Ms. Subhashree Sen, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Niranjan
Maharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel
appearing for the opposite party-Vigilance
Department.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. Maharana, learned Additional Standing
Counsel appearing for the opposite party-Vigilance
Department waives the notice.
4. Ms. Subhashree Sen, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that, in the present case,
Page 1 of 4
the F.I.R. was registered on 23.06.2024. After the
investigation, the charge sheet has been filed on
29.09.2007 for the alleged commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e)
of the P.C. Act, 1988 by the Court below. Albeit
cognizance of the offences as mentioned above has
been taken by the court below in the year 2007, but
thereafter the case has not been proceeded an inch.
5. Ms. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner very
specifically submits that till date, the trial has not
been proceeded even the charge has also not been
framed in the present case. She further submits that
the income of the wife of the petitioner has not been
factored into the calculation of disproportionate assets
of the petitioner. The wife of the petitioner is an
Income Tax payee. She has relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirankar
Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P. & others passed in
Criminal Appeal No.5009 of 2024 (arising from
SLP (Crl.) No.10101 of 2024). By relying upon
paragraphs- 9 & 11 of the said case, she submits that,
the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered
by not only the facts of the case cited but also the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Paragraphs 9 & 11 of the aforementioned case reads
as under:
"9. We are of the view that the Appellant's wife's income
must be considered as well while calculating the total income
Page 2 of 4
and assets. Both the Appellant and his wife have filed the
relevant income tax returns in order to show their respective
incomes and assets. The Respondents in their Counter-Affidavit
have not denied these income tax returns or alleged them to be
forged or fabricated. Therefore, when a public servant is
submitting his income tax returns, they should be presumed to
be true and correct. If you duly consider the income tax returns of
the Appellant and his wife for the check period of the year 1996-
2020, the total income is coming up to be Rs.1,21,06,268/-
(Rupees One Crore Twenty One Lakh Six Thousand Two
Hundred Sixty Eight only) which is in fact more than the assets
amounting to Rs.1,16,02,669/- (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakh
Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Nine only) which is said to be
the disproportionate assets in question under the present FIR.
11. We find it pertinent to note that in cases such as these
where disproportionate assets are being dealt with, the amounts
under scrutiny cannot be looked at in the same manner as one
would do a Bank statement or daily ledger of income and
expenditure. The scrutiny process cannot be as mechanical as
that when you are examining declared assets and the income of
an individual over such a long period of time. There has to be a
certain margin that is given while making such an assessment
as there are invariably economical fluctuations that would have
taken place, especially over the course of nearly twenty-five
years. It is crucial to have a nuanced appreciation of how time
and economic conditions affect asset value in such cases."
6. Issue notice. Mr. Maharana accepts notice on
behalf of vigilance.
7. Regard being had to the fact that the cognizance
in the present case has been taken in the year 2007,
but the trial has not yet been commenced, even the
charge has not yet been framed, I am inclined to grant
interim order of stay of the trial court proceeding
until further orders. In the meantime, there shall be
stay of the further proceedings in T.R. No.83 of 2007
pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge
(Vigilance), Bhubaneswar till the next date.
8. List this matter on 24.02.2025.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 03-Feb-2025 19:05:59
