Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Biranchi Prasad Misra on 30 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.10 of 2014
Arising out of the Judgment and order dated 07.12.2013 passed by the learned
Special Judge (Vigilance), Bolangir in C.T.R. No.44/26 of 1998-2007.
State of Odisha .... Petitioner
-versus-
1.Biranchi Prasad Misra
2.Sankirtan Pradhan (since dead)
3. Govinda Kuanr
4.Janardan Swain
.... Opp. Parties
5. Premraj Dharua (since dead)
Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode :
For Petitioner : Mr.Sangram Das, Standing Counsel
(Vigilance)
For Opp. Parties : Ms.Saubhagyalaxmi Patnaik, Adv.
on behalf of Mr.Amitav Tripathy, Adv.
(for O.P.1)
Mr.Subham Das, Adv.
on behalf of Mr.S.K.Dash, Adv.
(for O.Ps.3 and 4)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
.................................................................................................
Date of Judgment : 30.05.2025
.................................................................................................
Savitri Ratho, J. In this CRLLP, the petitioner-State has prayed for the
following relief:
"The petitioner above named, therefore prays that this
application may kindly be allowed leave to prefer appeal
against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal may
kindly be granted, the record of the lower court may kindly
be called for and the appeal may kindly be admitted, the
judgment and order of acquittal of the lower court may kindly
be set aside and accused be convicted U/s. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)
(c) P.C. Act 1988 and 409, 467, 471, 477-A, 34 of I.P.C. and
in the event of grant of leave, this application may kindly be
treated as GCRLA."
PROSECUTION CASE
2. The prosecution case in brief is that during the period from
September, 1995 to March, 1996 Silvi culture operation was undertaken in
Sikerpeta Reserve Forest under Gudvela Section of Bolangir Forest Range.
The work was being executed by Forester Biranchi Prasad Mishra under
the supervision of Forest Range officer Maheswar Pattanayak. The Forest
Guards, namely, Premraj Dharua, Govinda Kuanr. Janardan Swain and
Sankirtan pradhan used to engage labourers for cutting high stumps,
cleaning sides, packing stone on the down side and preparing half moon
trench on upside etc. They used to pay daily wage of Rs.25/- per day to
each labourer. P.W. 15, Inspector of Vigilance, Bolangir Sri Kunjabihari
Pani on receipt of information from reliable source about misappropriation
of government money while executing the silvi culture operation made
preliminary enquiry and informed the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance),
Sambalpur who treated it as FIR and directed Sri Pani to take up
investigation. The FIR is marked as Ext.258.
3. During course of investigation, P.W.15 , seized the cash book of
Range officer, Bolangir in three volumes, charge list of taking over charge
by Forest Range M.Pattnaik and handing over charge by Forest Ranger
P.N.Rout, charge list of taking over and handing over by Forester Biranchi
Prasad Mishra (accused) of Gudvela section, charge list of Dhanpur beat
handed over by Forest Guard G.Kuanr (accused), charge list of Jamut beat
handed over by Forest Guard J.Swain (accused), tour diary of forest ranger
for the period 2/96 and 3/96, tour diary of Forest Ranger M.Pattanayak for
the period commencing from September, 1995 to 15.03.1996, tour diary of
forester B.P.Mishra for the period September, 1995 to March, 1996 except
February, 1996, Forest advance requisition of Forest Ranger, Bolangir,
forest advance receipts given by the Forester B.P.Mishra to Range Officer,
Bolangir in Form No.51, tour diary of D.F.O. and A.C.F., Bolangir on
production of Ashok Kumar Parida (P.W.8) and prepared seizure list
marked Ext. 294.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS
4. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. P.W.1-Kamal Behera,
P.W.2-Budu Bagarty, P.W.3-Radhakanta Padhan, P.W.4-Khetri Bhoi,
P.W.7-Bhisma Pradhan, P.W.9-Lalita Rana, P.W.10-Nabin Deheria,
P.W.13-Bhojraj Puta and P.W.14-Ujal Bhoi are labourers which were
engaged in silvi culture operation by the accused persons. P.W.5-Maheswar
Pattnaik is the Range Officer, P.W.6-R.L. Raju is the Jr. Accountant of the
office of D.F.O., Bolangir, P.W.8-Ashoka Kumar Panda is the Senior Clerk
in the office of D.F.O., Bolangir who had produced documents before
Vigilance Police, P.W.11-Gorekha Pradhan and P.W.12-Chandra Sekhar
Danta are the witnesses to finger prints collection, P.W.5-Maheswar
Pattnaik is the informant-cum-I.O. and P.W.16-Antaryami Mohapatra is the
Finger Print Expert.
The defence examined one witness, D.W.1-Bipin Bihari Behera is
the Assistant Conservator of Forest.
The depositions of only P.Ws. 5 and 16 have been filed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
P.W.5 has stated that he was Forest Range Officer, Bolangir from
1994 to 1996 and that in the year 1995 bamboo silvi culture operation was
being carried on. The D.F.O. used to place fund in shape of cheque in the
name of Range Officer by way of advance. When the cheque is received,
acknowledgment thereof is obtained in Form No. 51 showing issue of
cheque as Forest advance requisition. He used to encash the cheque and
give the cash to different Foresters of different section for silvi culture
operation. It is stated by him that Gudvela Forest section was under
Bolangir Forest Range and accused Biranchi Prasad Mishra was Forester of
that section. He used to give forest advance to accused Sri Mishra and
obtained acknowledgment in Form No.51 from Sri Mishra as a token of
advance. Ext.1 to Ext. 174 are forest advance vouchers granted by accused
Biranchi Prasad Mishra, each voucher worth of Rs.1,000/-. The above
advance was given during September, 1995 to January, 1996. Accused
Biranchi Prasad Mishra had put his signature as token of receipt and his
signatures are marked as Ext. 1/1 to Ext. 174/1. He (P.W.5) has also given
signatures with seal showing disbursement of amount and his Signatures
are marked as Ext. 1/2 to Ext. 174/2. It transpires from his evidence that
labourers were engaged by the Forest Guard who maintains muster roll of
labourers. The labourer engaged on each working days are mentioned in
the muster roll to facilitate the payment of wages to the labourers. The
Forest Guard gives endorsement in the muster roll showing number of
labourer engaged and number of days of engagement and nature of work
done by them on the muster roll. Thereafter the muster roll with such
endorsement is produced before the Forester by the Forest Guard. After
verification of the muster roll, the Forester used to make payment to the
labourers in presence of Forest Guard. After the payment was made,
acknowledgment of payment is obtained in the muster roll from each
labourer. The Forester used to give his endorsement regarding his payment
made to labourers and the muster roll is submitted to the Range Officer to
incorporate the same in the monthly account of the Range. After receipt of
the muster roll, he (P.W.5) used to treat the same as Voucher for the
purpose of adjustment of the advance given to the Forester. He also reflect
this fact of adjustment of advance in the Cash Book of the Range Office
and submit the said muster roll with vouchers in Form No. 51 with seal and
signature to D.F.O. During relevant period, accused Govinda Kuanr was
Forest Guard of Dhanpur beat Ext. 175 to Ext.188 are the muster roll
prepared by accused Sri Kuanr. The endorsement made by him (P.W.5) in
the muster roll i.e. Ext. 175 to Ext. 188 that the amount shown therein was
disbursed through the Forester and Ext. 175/1 to Ext. 188/1 are his (P.W.5)
endorsement with signature. The Forest Guard accused Govinda Kuanr had
also given endorsement and signature showing that on his identification,
the Forester made payment to the labourers engaged by him in the work.
Ext. 175/2 to Ext 188/2 are the endorsement and signature of accused
Kuanr. Accused Biranchi Prasad Mishra, Forester, Gudvela section had
also given his endorsement to the effect that he had paid the amount to the
persons named in the muster roll and obtained their signature/LT.I. who
were engaged in the work with his signature marked as Ext. 175/3 to Ext
188/3.
It is stated by him (P.W.5) in para 7 of his examination-in-chief that
accused Janardan Swain was Forest Guard, Jamut Beat. Ext. 189 to Ext.
198 are the muster rolls prepared by accused Swain maintained by him. He
had submitted the said muster roll to Forester accused Biranchi Prasad
Mishra who handed over to him (P.W.5). He (P.W.5) had given his
endorsement and signature in the said muster roll as payment to the
labourers were made through the Forester and treated the same as Vouchers
and reflected in the Range Office cash book putting voucher numbers. Ext.
189/1 to Ext. 198/1 are his (P.W.5) endorsement with signatures. Forest
Guard Sri Swain had also given endorsement that he had actually engaged
labourers and payment was made on his identification by the Forester to the
labourers and obtained their L.T.I./signature. Ext. 189/2 to Ext. 198/2 are
the endorsement and signature. Ext. 189/3 to Ext. 198/3 are endorsements
and signatures of Forester B.P.Mishra showing payment made to the
labourers as per muster roll prepared by Forest Guard Sri Swain on his
identification.
Accused Premraj Dharua was the Forest Guard of Tapsuguda Forest
Beat and Ext. 199 to Ext.210 are the muster rolls prepared by Sri Dharua.
Said muster rolls were submitted to him (P.W.5) by the Forester B.P.
Mishra and that he treated the same as vouchers and given his endorsement
regarding payment in the Range Office cash book and assigned voucher
numbers on the muster rolls. The Forest Guard accused Dharua had also
given endorsement and signatures to the effect that he had actually engaged
the labourers on the work and on his identification their wages were paid
and the signature and L.T.I. of labourers were obtained in the muster roll
by the Forester. Ext. 199/2 to Ext.210/2 are the endorsement and signature
of Forest Guard accused Dharua. The endorsement and signature on the
muster roll that payment to the labourers were made as per identification of
Forest Guard Sri Dharua by the Forester Sri Mishra is marked as Ext. 199/3
to 210/3.
Accused Sankirtan Padhan was Forest Guard of Gudvela Forest
Beat. He had maintained the muster roll marked as Ext. 211 to Ext. 214.
The said muster rolls were submitted by Forester B.P.Mishra to him
(P.W.5) and that he treated the same as vouchers assigned voucher numbers
reflected the fact of payment of the amount made there under in the cash
book of Range Office and put his endorsement and signature on the muster
roll which are marked as Ext.211/1 to Ext.214/1. Ext. 211/2 to Ext. 214/2
are the endorsement with signature of Forest Guard Sri Padhan to the effect
that persons named in the muster roll were actually engaged and wages was
paid to them by Forester Sri Mishra on his identification. Ext. 211/3 to
214/3 are the endorsement with signature of Forester B.P.Mishra to the
effect that the amount of money paid towards wages to the persons named
in the muster roll were actually engaged in work on the identification of the
Forester. It further transpires from his evidence that he (P.W.5) submitted
all the muster rolls mentioned above to the office of D.F.O. for adjustment
of advance given to him after reflecting in the Range Office cash book. Ext.
214 is the cash book (Vol.102) of Bolangir Range Office for the period
15.3.1995 to 20.10.1995 maintained by him (P.W.5). The fact of payment
made under muster rolls Ext. 175 has been reflected in the cash book
marked as Ext.214/1 and he assigned voucher numbers 219. The said entry
Ext.214/1 finds place at page 155 of the cash book. All the entries made in
the Cash book are marked as Ext. 214, Ext. 215 and Ext. 216. The muster
rolls submitted by him to the office of D.F.O. are verified and order
"passed for payment" are obtained. The fact of payment made under muster
rolls are reflected in the cash book maintained in the office of D.F.O. The
evidence of P.W.5 clearly establish that the muster rolls are primarily
maintained by the Forest Guard who used to engage labourer and payment
to the labourers is made by the Forester on the identification of Forest
Guard. It has been clearly noted in the said muster roll name of the
labourers, number of days worked by them and payment thereon. The
Junior Accountant of the office of D.F.O., Bolangir by name R.L Raju is
examined as P.W.6 who also deposed about the procedure. He has stated
that the Vigilance police seized forest advance vouchers i.e. Ext. 1 to Ext.
174 issued by Forester Biranchi Prasad Mishra receiving money from
Range Officer. The Range Officer is to apply to funds to the D.F.O. and
D.F.O. gives money in shape of cheque taking advance voucher from the
Range Officer. The Range Officer used to show the cheque in his cash
book and then withdraw the money from the Bank and gives money to the
Foresters taking forest advance voucher from them. After execution of the
work, the Forester used to submit execution vouchers to the Range Officer
who is to reflect the same in the debit side and again will show it in the
credit side as forest advance recovered. The Range Officer shall prepare
copy of the cash book every month and will submit the same to the D.F.O.
enclosing vouchers. So the evidence of PW.5 and P.W.6 gives a clear
picture as to how the cheque is given by D.F.O. to Range Officer and the
latter after encash used to distribute between the Foresters and the Forest
Guard used to prepare muster roll and payment is made by the Forester in
presence of Forest Guard on his identification.
DEFENCE PLEA
5. The defence plea is complete denial of the allegations made against
the accused persons.
JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT
6. The learned trial Court framed the following points for
determination:-
"(i) Whether the accused persons being public servants
committed criminal misconduct and obtained pecuniary
advantage of Rs.11,175/- while executing Silvi culture
operation in between 11.9.1995 to 31.3.1996?
(ii) Whether accused persons being public servants were
entrusted with Rs.11,175/- and that they committed
criminal breach of trust in respect of the said property in
furtherance of their common intention during the relevant
period?
(iii) Whether accused persons being public servants
forged certain document i.e. manipulated the muster roll
which was treated as paid vouchers in furtherance of their
common intention during the relevant period?
(iv) Whether accused persons being public servants
fraudulently used the forged document as genuine
knowing it to be forged in furtherance of their common
intention during the relevant period?
(v) Whether accused persons being public servants of
forest Department falsified book of account belonging to
Forest Department with intent to defraud the employer in
furtherance of their common intention during the relevant
period ?"
7. The learned trial court on assessment of the evidence of the
witnesses arrived at the following findings:-
(i) Evidence of P.W.5-Maheswar Pattanayak, the Range Officer and
P.W.6-R.L. Raju, Jr. Accountant of the office of D.F.O. gives a clear
picture as to how the cheque is given by the D.F.O. used to be encashed as
distributed between the Foresters and the Forest Guard used to prepare the
muster roll and payment is made by the Forester in presence of the Forest
Guard on his identification.
(ii) None of the labourers supported the prosecution allegations.
All have stated that they were engaged in silvi culture operation and have
been paid their wages by the concerned Forest Guards in presence of
Forester. They have been declared hostile by the prosecution but their
omissions have not been confronted to the I.O. So the evidence of the
labourers that they have been paid for their wages remains as it is.
(iii) Opinion of the P.W.16-Antaryami Mohapatra finger print
expert is the only incriminating material against the accused. Their finger
prints of the accused were collected by the I.O. in presence of one Sanatan
Bagarty a staff in the DFO office but he has not been examined. The
accused have denied in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C
that their thumb impression was taken by the I.O.
(iv) Finger prints of both hands of the accused were taken
separately but P.W.16 the expert has not maintained parity and has picked
up certain finger prints and gave opinion. He has not stated about the years
of his experience or what specialized training he had which was necessary
for him to be treated as an expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.
(v) Evidence of an expert is anyways not conclusive, it can only be
corroborative.
(vi) The expert has filled up the columns in the forms. He has not
given any independent opinion on the body of the report. Other experts
who have signed on the reports have not been examined.
(vii) There is no investigation regarding exact amount received by
the accused by forging document. While Rs. 22,485/- has been mentioned
in the FIR, in the charge-sheet, the amount has come down to Rs. 11,175/.
No calculation sheet is available.
(viii) D.W.1- Bipin Bihari Behera, the Assistant Conservator of
Forest has stated that he had visited the work sites and verified the muster
rolls and did not notice any irregularity.
SUBMISSIONS
8. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel, Vigilance submitted
that the judgment passed by the learned Court below is contrary to law,
against the weight of evidence available on record and appears to have
been based on misconception of law. He then submitted that the learned
Court below should not have proceeded against the accused when the
original case record was not available with him. He further submitted that
as P.W.16, the finger print expert has stated in paragraphs 4, 7, 10 and 11
of his deposition that the thumb impression of the labourers available in the
vouchers do not belong to them but put by the accused Biranchi Prasad
Misra and as he has misappropriated the said money by falsifying the
vouchers showing the said document as genuine one, the offence is made
out against the accused.
9. On the other hand, Ms.Saubhagyalaxmi Patnaik, learned counsel
appearing for opposite party No.1 and Mr. Subham Das, learned counsel
appearing for Mr.S.K.Dash, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.3 and 4
submitted that after careful perusal of the case record and the evidence of
witnesses, the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order
and ultimately acquitted the accused persons under Section 248 (2) of
Cr.P.C. and held that the accused persons not guilty for the offence under
Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) of the P.C. Act and under
Sections 409, 467, 471, 477-A/34 of IPC. The judgment is neither perverse
nor erroneous. The learned trial Court has considered the evidence on
record and acquitted the opposite parties. It is not the case of the
prosecution that either any admissible evidence has been left out or any
inadmissible evidence has been taken into account. They further contended
that taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.5, the Range Officer, the
learned trial Court found that he used to encash the cheque by which fund
is placed with him by the concerned DFO in advance and thereafter, the
same is given to the Foresters working in different sections for silvi culture
operation, so the opposite parties have not committed any offence.
In support of their submission, the counsel for the opposite parties
relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ballu @ Balram
@ Balmukund and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal
Appeal No.1167 of 2018, decided on 2nd April, 2024 and the decision of
this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Rabindra Nag and another,
decided on 20.11.2023. They submit that the CRLLP should be dismissed
as being devoid of merit.
10. Learned counsel for the parties have also relied on the decisions in
the case of Gamini Bala Koteswar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
through Secretary: AIR 2010 SC 589 and Pritam Nath and others v. State
of Punjab: 2002 (6) SCC 321.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
11. In the case of Ballu @ Balram (supra), the Supreme
Court has held that:
"19. At the cost of repetition, we are compelled to say that the
findings of the High Court are totally based on conjectures and
surmises. Though the High Court has referred to the law laid down
by this Court with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal
against acquittal, the High Court has totally misapplied the same
and a very well-reasoned judgment based upon the correct
appreciation of evidence by the trial Court has been reversed by the
High Court, only on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
20. The High Court could have interfered in the criminal appeal
only if it came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Judge
were either perverse or impossible. As already discussed
hereinbefore, no perversity or impossibility could be found in the
approach adopted by the learned trial Judge.
21. In any case, even if two views are possible and the trial Judge
found the other view to be more probable, an interference would
not have been warranted by the High Court, unless the view taken
by the learned trial Judge was a perverse or impossible view.22. In
that view of the matter, we find that the judgment passed by the
High Court is totally unsustainable in law."
In the case of Chandrappa (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as follows:-
"(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal
is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling
reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong
circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc.
are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are
more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal
than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence
and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he
is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the 43
of 53 accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of
his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of
the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb
the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
In the case of Gamini Bala Koteswar Rao and others v. State of
Andhra Pradesh through Secretary: AIR 2010 SC 589, the appellants had
faced trial for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 IPC
and other sections. The learned trial court acquitted them holding that the
genesis of the occurrence had been suppressed and there were
inconsistencies in the ocular vis a vis medical evidence which went to the
root of the matter. The High Court in an appeal against acquittal filed by
the State found that the eye witnesses account of PW.1 and PW.5 fully
corresponded with the medical evidence and the presence of the two
witnesses had been fully explained and that the so called improvements and
inconsistencies referred to by the trial Judge in the course of its lengthy
judgment, were innocuous and did not go to the root of the matter and
could, therefore, be ignored. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of
the High Court and held that the judgment of the trial court was perverse
and partly allowed the appeal and convicted appellants 1 to 3 but confirmed
the acquittal of one accused.
In the case of Pritam Nath and others v. State of Punjab: 2002 (6)
SCC 321, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the
appellants who had been acquitted by the trial court but convicted by the
High Court, holding as follows:
"No interference by the High Court in such an appeal was
called for or warranted when the reasons given by the trial court for
recording acquittal are good and sturdy. The trial court had the
advantage and benefit of observing during the trial the demur and
conduct of the witnesses from its commencement to completion and
with that background on proper and objective appreciation of the
evidence as a whole recorded a finding of acquittal supported by
reasons. The High Court could not upset an order of acquittal as if it
was another trial court to record conviction forgetting that it was
sitting in first appeal against an order of acquittal. The High Court
failed to keep in its mind the well-settled principles in the matter of
reversing an order of acquittal.
Assuming one other view was possible to be taken by the
High Court, that was not enough in the light of well-settled position
in law. In this case, having regard to the discussion made and
reasons given by the trial court, extracted above, it cannot be said
that the appreciation of evidence was perverse or arbitrary or
findings recorded were based on no evidence or material evidence
was not considered. The High Court, in our view, committed a grave
error in convicting and sentencing the accused, reversing the order
of acquittal merely because it could take a different view. In a case
like this it is the duty of this Court to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order so as to do substantial justice."
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
12. The scope of an appeal against acquittal is limited.
13. While considering an appeal against acquittal and before that an
application for leave to appeal, an appellate court has to bear in mind that
in case of acquittal, of an accused by a court, there is double presumption
of innocence in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he
is proved guilty by a competent court of law. The presumption of an
accused is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the acquittal
by the trial court. The Appellate Court also has to bear in mind that if two
reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record,
and one view has been taken by the Court acquitting the accused, the
appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the
trial court merely because another view is possible.
14. An appellate Court can however interfere with an order of acquittal
if it is based on inadmissible material or if relevant evidence has been
ignored or where it is perverse.
15. I have carefully perused the judgment of the learned trial Court and
considered the submissions of the learned counsel.
16. The labourers who have been examined by the prosecution have
stated that they have been paid their dues.
17. D.W.1, the Assistant Conservator of Forest has stated that he had
visited the work sites and verified the muster rolls and did not notice any
irregularity.
18. The report of P.W 16 the handwriting expert incriminates the
accused persons. During pendency of this CRLLP, two of the opposite
parties, i.e opposite parties Nos. 2 and 5 have died.
19. The opposite parties cannot be convicted on the basis of report of
the P.W 16 the handwriting expert only.
20. After perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence of P.W. 5
and 16 which were produced by Mr Sangram Das learned Standing
Counsel Vigilance and considering the submissions of the counsel, I do not
find any perversity in the impugned judgment as the view of the learned
trial Court is a possible view on the basis of the evidence led by the
prosecution and defence. It is not based on impermissible and extraneous
materials nor has it ignored any evidence from consideration, which would
have persuaded it to take a different view.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no ground to grant leave
to the petitioner to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
22. The CRLLP is accordingly dismissed.
...........................
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated, the 30th May 2025/RKS
