Sitikanta Das Mohapatra & vs State Of Odisha (Vig.)
2025 Latest Caselaw 768 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sitikanta Das Mohapatra & vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) on 2 July, 2025

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                     CRLREV No. 71 of 2025

  Sitikanta Das Mohapatra & ....                          Appellants
  Others
                                         Mr. S. Pattanaik, Advocate
                              -versus-
  State of Odisha (Vig.)         ....                    Respondent
                                 Mr. Sanjay Das, Standing Counsel
                    CORAM:
  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
                  Date of Judgment: 02.07.2025

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. The legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 29.10.2024 passed in C.T.R. No.07 of 2022 by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) Sundargarh has been called in question in this Revision.

2. The background facts of the case are that the Principal of Koira Degree College, namely, Smt. Laxmi Ray, obtained 40% Block Grant by misusing her official position and producing forged documents by altering the date of her joining, thereby causing loss to the government exchequer. The case record reveals that Koira College was established in the year 1992 by a management committee comprising the villagers of Koira. In 1993, approval was granted by the competent authority for the functioning of +2 Arts and Commerce streams, and in 1996, permission was accorded under Section 57 of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. In 1994, the +3 Arts stream was introduced in the college. The enquiry reveals that

persons namely, Arun Kumar Das (Lecturer in History), Pankaj Mohan Panigrahi (Lecturer in Political Science), Dhananjaya Sahoo (Lecturer in Oriya), Sanghamitra Satpathy (Lecturer in Economics), and Sebak Bandhu Nayak (Lecturer in Logic) were selected by the Selection Committee and joined as lecturers on 16.07.1992. Smt. Sanghamitra Satpathy was appointed as the Principal of the said college. Subsequently, 21 more individuals were appointed as lecturers. Vide Resolution No. 52 dated 31.03.2002, Koira College and Koira Degree College were segregated with effect from 01.04.2002 in respect of administration, finance, staff, and infrastructure. Separate Governing Bodies were constituted for the +2 and +3 streams. Up to 31.03.2002, resolutions, records, attendance registers, and acquaintance registers were maintained in the +2 College for both streams.

Upon verification of records, including the gradation list of lecturers and correspondence with the Commissioner, EPF Office, Rourkela, the name of Smt. Laxmi Ray did not appear in any of the relevant documents for the period from 1992 to 31.03.2002. From 01.04.2002 onwards, separate records were maintained for the Junior College and the Degree College. Smt. Laxmi Ray joined as Lecturer in Oriya on 16.10.2003, having been appointed by the Governing Body, and was allotted Registration No. 37/03/04 by the Registrar, Sambalpur University. In 2009, Government Notification No. 732/HE dated 07.01.2009 was published, making institutions established with Government recognition and university affiliation before 01.06.1998 eligible for Block Grant. Teaching and non-

teaching staff appointed before that date were entitled to receive Block Grant salary.

3. Since Smt. Laxmi Ray joined only on 16.10.2003, she was not entitled to receive Block Grant salary. However, in order to claim the benefit, she prepared forged documents--such as an appointment letter, resolutions, acquaintance roll, and attendance register with the assistance of Sri Sitikantha Das Mahapatra, Lecturer, and Sri Paramananda Behera, Junior Clerk, among others. These documents falsely showed her date of joining as 18.08.1995 and were used to recommend her name to the Higher Education Department for inclusion under the Block Grant Scheme.

Smt. Ray was appointed Principal of Koira Degree College by the Governing Body on 23.11.2012. She took charge of the original college records (from 01.04.2002 onwards) from the then Principal Sri Sambit Kumar Mohanty, but allegedly concealed or destroyed the same. During inquiry, she produced forged documents, based on which the Higher Education Department was moved for her inclusion under the Block Grant Scheme by Sri Sitikantha Das Mahapatra, as Member Secretary of the College, via letter No. 774/KC+3 dated 24.03.2009.

Based on this recommendation, Smt. Ray received a total sum of ₹4,83,519.00 as Block Grant salary from 20.01.2009 to October 2014, which she was not entitled to. This amount constituted a loss to the Government. From the facts and circumstances, it is established that Smt. Laxmi Ray, in connivance with Sri Sitikantha Das Mahapatra and Sri Paramananda Behera,

prepared forged documents to secure Block Grant salary by misrepresenting her date of joining. It is further alleged that Sri Sitikantha Das Mahapatra and Sri Paramananda Behera abetted the said forgery.

4. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that Sri Sitikantha Das Mohapatra, Lecturer in Philosophy; Sri Pradeep Kumar Pattnayak, Lecturer; Ms. Geet Rani Ray; Sri Manglu Mahakud; and Smt. Laxmi Ray had affixed their signatures in the forged acquaintance register, which was seized from the possession of Smt. Laxmi Ray. The investigation further disclosed that these individuals, with the intention of forging records to confer undue benefit upon Smt. Ray, concealed original documents and prepared forged ones. In these fabricated records, the date of joining of Smt. Ray was shown as 18.08.1995, with the support of signatures from Sri Sitikantha Das Mohapatra, Sri Pradeep Kumar Pattnayak, Sri Sambit Kumar Mohanty (Lecturer), Sri Paramananda Behera (Junior Clerk), Sri Manglu Mahakud (Peon), and Ms. Geeta Rani Ray (Peon). Accordingly, a charge sheet was submitted against the Petitioners and the other named individuals.

5. Subsequently, an application was filed by the Petitioners under Section 239 of the CrPC before the learned trial court, seeking discharge from the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 409, 468, 477-A, and 120-B of the IPC. They contended that they had joined as Lecturers in 1995 on different dates and had no role in the preparation of the forged documents. Their principal argument was that the entire responsibility lay with Smt. Laxmi

Ray, who was the sole beneficiary of the alleged forgery, and that they had merely signed the attendance and acquaintance registers in the ordinary course of their official duties as faculty members. It is also the contention of the Petitioners that their specimen and admitted signatures had been sent to the CEQD for forensic comparison, but no definitive opinion was received, thereby casting doubt on their alleged involvement. The Petitioners also asserted that there was no material to suggest that they conspired with Smt. Ray to cause wrongful gain or loss to the Government. According to them, no evidence exists to show that they dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated any property, or that any such property had been entrusted to them so as to attract the offence under Section 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act. It was also argued that there was no evidence of abuse of official position or pecuniary gain attributable to them. The Petitioners contended that the materials on record failed to establish any element of criminal breach of trust or forgery on their part under Sections 409 and 468 of the IPC, and therefore, the impugned order rejecting their discharge petition was unsustainable.

6. Mr. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the Petitioners, impressing upon the various documents submitted that the mere signatures of the Petitioners in the attendance and other registers cannot in itself be taken as material to enter into the conspiracy with the Principal, so as to give her benefit.

7. Mr. Das, leaned Standing Counsel for the State-Vigilance, on the contrary, submitted that the ground advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners seeking discharge from the offences

could at best be taken as the ground for defence as apparently the material available on record reveals that the Petitioners put their signatures in the register knowing fully well that the beneficiary never joined prior to 2003 but her named having been found in the register they continue put their signatures thereby giving an impression to their knowledge and misrepresenting themselves before the authority that Smt. Laxmi Ray had joined during the period 1995. As far as the opinion of the Handing Writing Expert is concerned, the same could be evidence which need to be controverted by the Petitioners during trial. The report ipso facto does shoe the Petitioners to have not signed in the register. Accordingly, learned counsel for the State submitted that the impugned order is absolutely legal and justified and it being in consonance with law, requires no interference.

8. From the perusal of the case diary and charge sheet, it appears that the present Petitioners, namely Sri Sitikantha Das Mahapatra, Lecturer in Philosophy, Sri Pradeep Kumar Pattanayak, Lecturer in History, and Sri Sambit Kumar Mohanty, Lecturer in English, were actively involved in the preparation and authentication of the said forged records intended to falsely reflect that Smt. Laxmi Ray had joined Koira Degree College on 18.08.1995, whereas in actuality she had joined much later on 16.10.2003. The investigation unearthed that in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, forged documents including appointment letters, attendance registers, acquaintance rolls, and resolutions were fabricated and submitted to the Higher Education Department to secure monetary benefits under the Block Grant Scheme. The

Petitioners, being members of the faculty and staff of the College, allegedly affixed their signatures in the manipulated records knowingly, thereby aiding and abetting the act of forgery and misrepresentation. The forged documents, which included the acquaintance register and attendance records bearing the signatures of the Petitioners, were found to have been seized from the possession of Smt. Laxmi Ray. Their role in authenticating and facilitating the use of these forged documents forms a crucial link in the chain of events that led to the wrongful financial gain to Smt. Laxmi Ray and consequent loss to the public exchequer. Accordingly, the Petitioners have been charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 409, 468, 477-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

9. Statements recorded during investigation reveal that Smt. Laxmi Ray had actually joined Koira Degree College only on 16.10.2003, yet the Petitioners--Sri Sitikantha Das Mahapatra, Sri Pradeep Kumar Pattanayak, and Sri Sambit Kumar Mohanty--are alleged to have actively facilitated the fabrication of records to falsely show her joining in 1995. Witnesses noted the sudden appearance of her name in old attendance and acquaintance registers, bearing the signatures of the Petitioners, who were in service at the time. These signatures were allegedly made knowingly to lend authenticity to the backdated entries and support her eligibility under the Block Grant Scheme. Notably, a recommendation letter forwarding her name, signed by Petitioner Sitikantha Das Mahapatra, formed part of the official

communication. The seizure of forged documents from Smt. Ray, combined with interpolations and missing original records, further strengthens the prosecution case. The inconclusive handwriting opinion does not override the cumulative circumstantial and testimonial evidence implicating the Petitioners. Taken together, the witness statements form a cogent body of material indicating that the Petitioners were not mere signatories in routine course of duty, but active participants in the conspiracy to forge official records and cause wrongful gain to Smt. Ray at the cost of public funds.

10. The impugned order dated 29.10.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sundargarh, rejecting the Petitioners' application under Section 239 CrPC, is based on a considered assessment of the materials on record. The trial court noted that the forged documents such as attendance registers, acquaintance rolls, and resolutions contained the Petitioners' signatures against fabricated entries falsely showing Smt. Laxmi Ray's date of joining as 18.08.1995. Given that the Petitioners were in service during the relevant period, their consistent signatures in these documents were viewed not as routine acts, but as a deliberate endorsement of falsehood, lending credibility to the forged records. The court also took note of the Petitioners' role in forwarding the recommendation for Block Grant inclusion, particularly the letter signed by Petitioner Sitikanta Das Mahapatra, and found such conduct indicative of complicity. The Petitioners' reliance on the inconclusive handwriting expert opinion was held insufficient to warrant discharge, as such issues are to be tested during trial. The court concluded that the arguments raised pertained to defence, and

at the stage of discharge, the existence of a prima facie case was sufficient to proceed. Accordingly, the discharge application was rejected as the materials disclosed grave suspicion justifying trial.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality, impropriety, or infirmity in the impugned order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sundargarh in C.T.R. No.07 of 2022. The materials collected during investigation, including forged documents bearing the signatures of the Petitioners, corroborated by witness statements and official correspondence, disclose sufficient grounds to presume the involvement of the Petitioners in the alleged offences. The arguments raised by the Petitioners touch upon their defence, which can only be examined on the basis of evidence adduced at trial. At the stage of considering discharge under Section 239 CrPC, it is sufficient that the prosecution has placed materials giving rise to grave suspicion against the accused.

12. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present Revision. The CRLREV No. 71 of 2025 stands dismissed.

The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made herein.

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge A.K.Pradhan

Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 03-Jul-2025 16:45:41