Orissa High Court
Dr. Haraprasad Mishra vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) ....... ... on 29 January, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1949 of 2023
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973)
Dr. Haraprasad Mishra ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha (Vigilance) ....... Opposite Party
For the Petitioner : Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Niranjan Maharana,
Additional Standing Counsel,
Vigilance Department
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 13.11.2024 : Date of Judgment: 29.01.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The petitioner, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 Cr. P.C., has assailed the entire criminal prosecution
initiated against him. He had moved an application under Section 239 of
the Cr. P.C. seeking discharge from the alleged offences charged against
him. Vide impugned order dated 23.03.2023, the application moved by
the petitioner has been turned down by the learned Special Judge,
Vigilance, Keonjhar. Challenging the said impugned order, the petitioner
has approached this Court in the form of the present petition.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner made by the prosecution
is that, the petitioner remained in-charge of the District Ayurvedic
Medical Officer (DAMO), Keonjhar for the period from 08.04.2013 to
30.11.2013. During that period, when the petitioner was in-charge, one
Dr. Balabhadra Dash has taken the salary of Rs.1,99,754/- despite Dr.
Dash was absent from the duty from April, 2013 to June, 2013. Since the
petitioner was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO), who has
drawn the salary bill of the accused Dr. Balabhadra Dash without grant
of leave or receiving working certificate of the absentee period of March,
2013 to June, 2013 from the Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Malda
salary has been approved.
3. Basing on the aforementioned allegation, the F.I.R. was registered.
After investigation, the Vigilance Department, has filed the charge sheet
under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. on 15.11.2017 against the accused
persons including the present petitioner for the alleged commission of
Page 2 of 21
the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the
P.C. Act r/w Section 409/120-B of the IPC.
4. In so far as the present petitioner is concerned, after the investigation,
the charge sheet was filed, inter alia, recording as under:
"06. Dr. Haraprasad Mishra, (Retd.) was working as ADMO,
Keonjhar and was also drawing and disbursing authority of the said office
for the period 08.04.2013 to 30.11.2013. Sri Paresh Kumar Das was the
working as Head Clerk of the said office from 30.11.2012 to 13.01.2015.
The then HC Sri Das had prepared the pay bill for the month of March-
2013 to June-2013 and the then DDO Dr. Mishra was drawn up the salary
bill without grant of leaves or receiving working certificate of the absent
period of March-2013 to June-2013 at GAD, Malada. The following table
showing the month, amount drawn and Bill No. with date of salary in
favour of Dr. B.B. Dash of his absent period:
Sl. For the Amount Bill No. Bill Books of Date of Date of
No. month drawn with date Register Drawal passed at credit of
for Page Page Treasury amount in
salary No. No. a/c
01 March- 48,835/-
08 dtd. 45 43 29.04.2013 29.04.2013
2013 23.04.2013
02 April-2013 48,835/-19 dtd. 46 44 09.05.2013 10.05.2013
03.05.2013
03 May-2013 51,042/- 41 dtd. 48 48 07.06.2013 07.06.2013
03.06.2013
04 June-2013 51,042/- 59 dtd. 50 50 02.07.2013 03.07.2013
28.06.2013
05 Arrear DA 8,828/- 78 dtd. 52 53 24.07.2013 27.07.2012
from 01/13 22.07.2013
to 04/13
On verification of the Books of Drawal it is found that all the above
bills to District Treasury, Keonjhar (T) Peon S. Mahakud for passed at
District Treasury, Keonjhar.
Page 3 of 21
Hence, both Dr. H. Mishra Ex-DDO, Keonjhar and Sri Paresh
Kumar Das Head Clerk are liable for paying salary of Rs.2,08,582/- for
the absent period from 08.04.2013 to 30.11.2013."
5. Similar allegations were made against one Dr. Nirmal Chandra
Mishra and Dr. Laxmi Narayan Satapathy for having disbursed the salary
to the principal accused Dr. Balabhadra Dash spanning from different
periods. But evidence against them collected by the I.O. is quite different
from the petitioner.
6. In nutshell, the precise allegation against the present petitioner is
that, he has approved and disbursed the salary for the period from
March, 2013 to June, 2013 to the principal accused Dr. Balabhadra Dash
without verification and without receiving the Working Certificate for
that period. It is apparent from the charge sheet that, there is no
allegation of any kind of misappropriation or derivation of financial
benefit by the present petitioner.
7. The allegation simplicitor is regarding the dereliction in the official
duty assigned to the present petitioner by not verifying the fact that the
principal accused has indeed worked during the period from March,
2013 to June, 2013 or not. The petitioner being the Drawing and
Page 4 of 21
Disbursing Authority appears to have granted and approved the salary
for that period without there being any working certificate, which is
mandatory in such cases.
8. The petitioner moved a detailed application before the Court below
under Section 239 of the Cr. P.C. seeking discharge, as according to him
even if the allegation in the charge sheet is taken at its face value, no
case is made out against him. He has urged many points. One of such
points, which is relevant is reproduced below:
"15. That, during the investigation the accused has categorically
stated before the I.O. that as per Govt. guideline the salary of the staff
of govt. ayurvedic dispensary is drawn up after receipt of working
certificate from the concerned dispensary which is submitted 25th of
each month. As most of the dispensary of Keonjhar district are located
in rural areas, there was postal delay in receipt of working certificates
from some dispensary. In order to avoid difficulty salary bills of the
dispensaries were prepared even it non receipt of working certificate
during the said month and the concerned dispensary was informed
over telephone to submit the working certificates immediately. If the
I/C of the dispensary was not submitting working certificate in any
month, the salary of the staff for the next month was being stopped
and further follow up action was being taken against the concerned
medical officer.
16. That, I had received working certificates from Dr. Balabhadra
Dash, DAMO, GAD, Malda during the period from 03/2013 to
06/2013 and accordingly his salary was drawn up during the said
period. No report was received by me either from the villagers of
Malada or from the staff of the dispensary regarding his absence
during the said period. I had also not visited the said dispensary
during my tenure from 08.04.2013 till 06/2013 and after that he
Page 5 of 21
remained absent from duty submitting leave application time to time
and he was not paid during the said period."
9. The learned trial Court, vide impugned order has rejected the prayer
of the petitioner for discharge, inter alia, observing as under:
"During inquiry it is established that during the period of
absent of Dr. Balabhadra Dash from 11/2009 to 6/2010, 08/2010
to 06/2013 received gross salary of Rs.17,38,214/- though he was
absent in his duty post without grant of leave. Out of said amount
Dr. Nirmal Chandra Mishra had drawn up salary amount
Rs.2,00,010/- for the period from 01/2010 to 06/2010, Dr.
Laxminarayan Satpathy had drawn up Rs.12,33,615/- for the
period from 11/2009 to 12/2009, 08/2010 to 01/2013. Dr.
Raghunath Giri Ex-DAMO Mayurbhanj who was in charge of the
DAMO Keonjhar has drawn up salary of Rs.48,835/- for February
2013 Dr. Haraprasad Mishra Ex DAMO Keonjhar had drawn
salary of Rs.1,99,754/- for March, 2013 to June, 2013, Sri Narayan
Mallik Ex-Head Clerk (Retired) Sri Jayanta Kumar Satpathy, Jr.
Clerk-cum-Typist and Sri Paresh Chandra Das, Head Clerk all
office of the DAMO Keonjhar assisted the above DDOs in
preparing the salary bills of Dr. Dash Ex-AMO GAD Malda
Keonjhar during his period of absence from 11/2009 to 06/2010,
08/2010 to 06/2013 as a result of which Dr. Dash Ex-AMO GAD
Malda received Rs.17,38,214/- towards his salary without
performing any duty and remaining unauthorized absence causing
loss to the Govt. Exchequer for which they all are liable for offence
punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988/409/120-B of
I.P.C.
On perusal of the record it is found that the present accused
petitioner was working as ADMO Keonjhar and was also drawing
and disbursing authority of the said office for the period
08.04.2013 to 30.11.2013 and during that period he drawn the
salary bill of accused Dr. Balabhadra Das without grant of leave
or receiving working certificate of the absentee period of March
2013 to June 2013 at GAD Malda."
Page 6 of 21
10. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned rejection order dated 23.03.2023,
the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition.
11. Heard Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
and Mr. Niranjan, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite
party-Vigilance Department.
12. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate has contended that the
allegation that the petitioner ought to have verified grant of working
certificate cannot stand the scrutiny of law, as the petitioner neither the
Officer in-charge of granting the Working Certificate nor he is
responsible for maintaining the Issue Register of GAD, Malda Duty of
the petitioner as Drawing & Disbursing Officer is confined merely to
disburse the salary based on the working certificate received. Therefore,
the investigation does not prima facie makes out a case against the
petitioner and the learned trial Court has failed to consider this aspect of
the matter. He further contended that, there is no iota of evidence
brought on record to establish the nexus that the present petitioner and
the other Drawing & Disbursing Officers have acted in cohersion with
the principal accused and caused deliberate loss to the State Exchequer.
Page 7 of 21
The petitioner has followed his official duty and disbursed the salary in
accordance with the working certificate received which in no manner
lead to any conclusion beyond the reasonable doubt that the act of the
petitioner was done to cause loss to the public exchequer. To support his
contention, he has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and
another, reported in 1979 (3) SCC 4. He has pointed out the following
passage from the aforementioned judgment, which reads as under:
"Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the
following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against
the accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained in Court will be fully justified in framing a
charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would
naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to
lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however
if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that
the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some
suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be
fully within his right to discharge the accused."
13. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate further contended that the
petitioner being the DDO is authorized to grant salary of its employees
Page 8 of 21
based on the working certificate received. As stated in the FIR and the
Charge Sheet, the petitioner has approved the salary of the accused Dr.
Balabhadra Dash based on the working certificate.
He further submitted that, the learned Trial Court has taken
cognizance of offence U/s. 409 & 120-B of IPC sans sanction U/s. 197
of Cr. P.C. being obtained by the prosecution. The act complained off by
the prosecution against the petitioner was an official function, the
Vigilance ought to have obtained the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.
P.C. for proceedings against the petitioner in this case. However, the
learned Trial Court has taken cognizance without there being sanction
obtained by the prosecution from the concerned authority. Therefore, the
order of cognizance is bad in law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Punjab vs. Labh Singh, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 807 has
stated as follows:
"Unlike Section 19 of the P.C. Act, the protection under Section
197 of Cr. P.C. is available to the public servant concerned even
after retirement. Therefore, if the matter was considered by the
sanctioning authority and the sanction to prosecute was rejected first
on 13.09.2000 and secondly on 24/09/2003, the Court could not have
taken cognizance in so far as the offences punishable under the
Penal Code are concerned."
Page 9 of 21
14. Opposing the prayer made by the petitioner, Mr. Niranjan Mahrana,
learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department has
contended that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application
of discharge moved by the petitioner. He submitted that the principal
accused Dr. Balabhadra Dash has neither worked nor present from
October, 2009 to June, 2013 in the GAD, Malda and was absent for the
aforesaid period. However, the petitioner, including other DDOs, being
the AMO in the District Ayurvedic Medical Office, Keonjhar i.e.,
accused persons disbursed the salaries to the tune of Rs.17,65,602/-,
even if he has not performed his duty and remained absent
unauthorizedly. The petitioner has disbursed the salary and arrear DA
bills of the principal accrued for the absent period on the basis of forged
bills prepared by the Head Clerk, namely, Paresh Kumar Das of his
office. It was further revealed during investigation and verification that
the working certificates submitted for the months of April, 2013 to June,
2013 have not been issued by the GAD, Malda and no such entry in
respect of the same is available in the register. However, false letter
numbers have been put in the said certificates. The investigation further
Page 10 of 21
reveals that the bills and working certificates are false. Therefore, the
working certificates are fraudulently created at the office of the
petitioner with dishonest intention to release the bills in favour of the
principal accused within the knowledge of the petitioner. In the
statement under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C., the Head Clerk Paresh
Kumar Das has stated that "Though he had verbally intimated to the
DDOs, including the petitioner about the non-submission of working
certificates by Dr. Balabhadra Das, however, the DDOs have verbally
told him to release the salary and he (the principal accused) will produce
the working certificate later on." It further fortifies the knowledge,
connivance and dishonest intention as well as abuse of official position
by the petitioner and other co-accused persons in the alleged crime.
Hence, the petitioner is liable to be tried for the charges u/s. 13(1)(d) of
the P.C. Act and Sec. 120-B of the IPC along with other accused
persons.
15. Mr. Maharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
Vigilance further contended that the petitioner is the DDO and it is his
onerous duty to verify the bills and is also required to ascertain why
Page 11 of 21
there was arrear, prior to releasing the same in favour of the principal
accused. The documentary evidences collected during the investigation
and the statements of the witnesses clearly reveal that the petitioner and
the other accused persons have acted illegally with a dishonest intention
and abused their official position in order to facilitate the principal
accused to obtain pecuniary advantages of Rs.17,65,602/- and thereby
misappropriated the public fund to the tune of that amount. Hence, the
petitioner is liable for the offences as above.
16. Mr. Maharana submitted that the law is well settled that the High
Court, in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction should not weigh or
examine the evidences and conduct a mini trial at a pre-trial stage. The
defence of the accused will be examined only during the trial. He relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Amit
Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & others, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460,
Charanjit Lamba vs. Commanding Officer, Southern Command &
others, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 314 and Padma vs. Hiralal Motilal
Desarda & others, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 564 etc.
Page 12 of 21
17. I have gone through the entire records placed before me and in the
light of the fact scenario of the present case, appreciated the judgments
cited by both the parties at the Bar.
18. This Court is alive to the fact that at this stage, the probable
defense of the accused need not be taken into consideration. The Court is
only required to confine its view on the basis of the material available on
record, which form part of the charge sheet. If on the appreciation of the
materials collected by the Investigating Agency filed along with the
charge sheet, a prima facie case is not made out or the evidence is
lacking to substantiate the charge, this Court, while exercising the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is not forbidden
under law to exercise its jurisdiction. From the record, it is evident that
the only allegation against the petitioner is that he being the Drawing &
Disbursing Authority has approved and disbursed the salary of the
principal accused Dr. Balabhadra Dash for the period from March, 2013
to June, 2013 without verifying as to whether the principal accused was
indeed working during that period or not.
Page 13 of 21
19. The investigation itself discloses that the salary was approved and
disbursed through the Treasury at the instance of the present petitioner
after receiving the working certificate. This may be at best a case of
dereliction of duty on the part of the present petitioner. However, unless
the mens rea is attached to the conduct associated with the act
complained of, no criminal liability can be fastened. If the petitioner had
knowledge of the fact that the principal accused has not worked during
that period even then he has approved the salary, there may be the mens
rea attached to the conduct of the petitioner. The only piece of evidence,
which has been placed before the Court in the charge sheet is the
statement of one Paresh Kumar Das and Jayanta Kumar Satapathy. The
relevant part of their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.
P.C. are reproduced hereunder:
Question No.7: You say, as a Head Clerk, from December, 2012 till
February, 2013, without the Malda Dispensary AMO Sri Balabhadra
Dash working certificate, how could you draw the salary?
Reply: I brought it to the notice of the then DAMO Laxmi Narayan
Satpathy for two months 12/12 and 1/13 and Sri R.N. Giri, DAMO for
February, 13 that the AMO, Malda Dispensary Sri Balabhadra Dash was
not giving the working certificate and in spite of non-availability of the
working certificate of their staff, he said to prepare the salary bill. I was
forced to sign on that."
Page 14 of 21
Question No.6: You were in charge of the Head Clerk from 01.05.2012 to
30.11.2012 and after that also you were in charge of the salary bill. You
say, without the working certificate, how could you prepare the salary bill
of the AMO Sri Balabhadra Dash of Malda Ayurvedic Dispensary from
May, 2012 to February, 2013 ?
Reply: I brought it to the notice of the DAMO Laxmi Narayan Satpathy
orally time and again that the AMO, Malda Ayurvedic Dispensary Sri
Balabhadra Dash was not giving the working certificate. But the DAMO
Sri L.N. Satpathy told me to prepare the salary bill of Balabhadra Dash
and his staff in spite of non-availability of their working certificate. So,
finding no way, I prepared their salary bill."
20. It would be also relevant to reproduce the statement of Prasanna
Kumar Deo, the Medical Officer, who conducted the inquiry regarding
the absence of the principal accused Dr. Balabhadra Dash from duty:
"As regards my above visit to Malda Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary on
10.12.2013, I prepared a Minutes of my surprise visit duly signed by
me along with Dr. Kartik Chandra Mahapatra who had accompanied
with me and also the villagers present during my said surprise visit
and enquiry. After returning from surprise visit from Malda Govt.
Ayurvedic Dispensary I had discussed the unauthorized and long
absence of Dr. Balabhadra Dash from Malda Govt. Dispensary with
the Director, Ayush, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and according to
instruction I had submitted a report to him vide letter No.1231 dtd.
12.12.2013 o/o. D.A.M.O., Keonjhar along with copy of petition of
villagers Malda, Keonjhar, statement of Sanatan Mahakud, P.T.S.-
cum-Night Watchman of G.A.D. Malda, Keonjhar, statement of
Ayurvedic Asst. Dhaneswar Mahakud of G.A.D. Malda, Keonjhar,
copy of my visit note to Malda Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary."
21. Barring the aforementioned three sets of oral statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is nothing placed on record by the prosecution
to substantiate the charge against the petitioner.
Page 15 of 21
22. Perusal of the statement of Paresh Das and Jayanta Satapathy those
who were working as Senior Clerk and Junior Clerk respectively reveals
that the papers for disbursement of the salary for the period from
December, 2012 to February, 2013 and for the period from 01.05.2012 to
30.11.2012 was prepared and placed before the respective Drawing &
Disbursing Authorities and they have categorically informed that the
working certificates are not available for that period, still the Drawing &
Disbursing Authority those who are the co-accused with the present
petitioner had insisted to disburse the salary even without the working
certificate. However, none of the witnesses have whispered anything
against the present petitioner, obviously because they were not
functioning in the office of the petitioner during April, 2013 to June,
2013.
23. In that case, the knowledge of not having the working certificate
was attributed to those accused persons function during the period
spanning from December, 2012 to February, 2013 and May, 2012 to
November, 2012. However, in the case of the present petitioner, the
Investigating Agency has not made any attempt to obtain any kind of
Page 16 of 21
oral evidence to establish that the petitioner had prior knowledge that the
principal accused had not worked during the period, the petitioner was in
charge as DDO. Rather, on the contrary, the prosecution has stated that
the petitioner has approved the salary on the basis of the working
certificate. The statement of Prasanna Kumar Deo, who conducted the
enquiry as reproduced above also reveals that he had visited the Malda
Ayurvedic Dispensary on 13.12.2013 and found that the principal
accused has not been attending the Dispensary. This report was placed
subsequent to his visit. Therefore, the inquiry is also conducted
regarding the absent of the principal accused from his duty after June,
2013. Hence, there was no occasion for the petitioner to know that the
principal accused had not attended the duty during the period from
March, 2013 to June, 2013. On the basis of the aforementioned
evidences on record, the petitioner has been set to face the criminal trial.
24. I am convinced that even if the prosecution case is taken at its face
value, no case is made out against the petitioner on the basis of the
materials which form part of the charge sheet.
Page 17 of 21
25. Merely approving and disbursing the salary for the period from
March, 2013 to June, 2013 to the tune of Rs.1,99,754/- without there
being any material to infer that the petitioner had indeed derived any
financial or otherwise advantage from his impugned conduct, no mens
rea could be found. There is no material on record to establish that
petitioner had prior knowledge that the principal accused has not been
attending the duty rather the material produced by the prosecution speaks
otherwise.
26. Mens rea is sine qua non for inviting penalty under the provisions
of the Prevention of Corruption, Act. Scanning through the evidence
forms part of the chargesheet making it abundantly clear that the
petitioner has routinely approved for disbursal of salary of main accused
without following procedural due diligence in practice. He has only
approved the papers put up before him by the junior officers. In the case
of present petitioner, none of the junior officers has given statement
under section 161 Cr.P.C informing him regarding the absence of prime
accused from his duty during the period of March-2013 to June-2013.
On the contrary, working certificate was produced along with other apers
Page 18 of 21
for approval of the salary. The working certificate according to
prosecution found to be forged one, to which the petitioner obviously has
no knowledge.
The Investigating Officer in case of the other Disbursing Officers
(co-accused) had obtained oral statements from the junior officers, those
who have stated that the fact of absence of principal accused from duty
was informed, despite that the Disbursing Officers asked them to clear
the salary, statement of the principal accused. These statements are not
directed against the petitioner accused.
Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad, in the case of, State of
Gujrat vs. Himatlal Bhailal Rajgor & ors in R/Criminal Appeal No
310 of 1998, has held as under :-
"14. In the case on hand, when mens rea is conspicuously
absent, the mere use of any forged or counterfeit currency notes or
bank notes cannot attract the provisions of Section 489(B). The
essential ingredient of the said offense is that the person who
receives the notes has reason to believe that the said notes are
forged or counterfeit. The prosecution is required to prove beyond
all reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge or reason to
believe that the currency notes they used or possessed were
counterfeit or fake. The prosecution has failed to prove this fact. One
more significant aspect is also required to be considered. The
investigating officer admitted that he did not collect any material or
independently verify whether the said dollars were genuine. For the
purpose of comparison, he did not receive any independent opinion
Page 19 of 21
from the American Reserve Bank or any other authority to compare
the said series of dollars or bank notes. Even upon perusing the
record, it appears that initially, the said dollars were sent to the FSL
for examination. The FSL returned them, raising queries due to the
absence of any control sample or contemporary currency notes for
comparison, making it unable to opine on the matter. Subsequently,
the FSL again opined that the currency notes were forged, but there
was no evidence of any comparison with temporary original
currency notes or control samples. Even seizing of the said currency
notes sample and control sample is also not proved on record not
witness is examined for collection and sending the same sample to
the FSL and there is no evidence in relation to the chain of custody
or the sampling in order to preserve the integrity of the seized
materials. There is no evidence except produced by prosecution on
record to prove alleged possession of the so called 'counterfeit
currencies'.
In the present case mens rea is conspicuously absent. Mere
approval of salary for period of March 2013- June 2013 in favour of
principal accused which was approved by the petitioner and disbursed
through the Treasury, could not fasten criminal liability on petitioner in
the absence of any evidence of criminal conspiracy. The evidence vis-à-
vis the present petitioner does not make out a case against him. Hence,
due to the peculiarity of the nature of the allegation against the petitioner
and the evidence collected by the police forming part of the charge sheet,
I am inclined to allow the petition. However, it is made clear that, I have
Page 20 of 21
not expressed any opinion about the merits of the case pertaining to the
other accused persons are concerned.
27. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 passed in
V.G.R. Case No 02 of 2015 and the criminal proceeding arising out of
Balasore Vigilance Case No.57 of 2014 pending in the court of learned
Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar is set aside and the CRLMC is
accordingly disposed of.
......................
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 29th January, 2025/Subhasis Mohanty, Personal Assistant
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 31-Jan-2025 17:30:21
