Babaji Charan Prusty & vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance)
2025 Latest Caselaw 10446 Ori

Orissa High Court

Babaji Charan Prusty & vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) on 26 November, 2025

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            I.A. No.1918 of 2025
                   (Arising out of CRLA No.676 of 2025)
Babaji Charan          Prusty    & ....                     Appellants/
another                                                   Petitioners
                                         Mr. H. K. Mund, Sr. Advocate
                                  -versus-

State of Odisha (Vigilance)         ....                   Respondent/
                                                           Opp. Party
                                Mr. Srimanta Das, Sr. S.C. (Vigilance)

                   CORAM:
  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
                     Date of Judgment: 26.11.2025

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

I.A. No.1918 of 2025 (Arising out of CRLA No.676 of 2025)

1. By means of this Interlocutory Application, the Petitioners pray for stay of the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.38 of 2018 of 2012/2010, during pendency of the Appeal and for such other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. The Petitioners/Appellants (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner" for convenience) being implicated in the offences under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in connection with Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.6 of 2005, found guilty and upon conviction, sentenced to undergo R.I.

for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, each in default to undergo R.I. for six months for each of the offences.

3. The prosecution case unfolded before the Trial Court against the Petitioners are that the father of the Petitioner No.1, who was serving in the Health Department as an Attendant, expired in November, 2004, and thereafter, Petitioner No.1 entered government service as an Accountant in the Central Cooperative Bank, Banki on 12.12.1978 and continued till 13.06.1981. He subsequently joined the Odisha State Cooperative Bank (OSCB) on 24.06.1981. During his service tenure, he served in various capacities at different branches including Main Branch, Sahidnagar Branch, CDA Extension Counter, Sambalpur Branch, Cuttack Branch, and Boudh Branch of OSCB, and was later promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager, OSCB, Cuttack Branch. During his aforesaid tenure, he allegedly did not submit the property statements to the competent authority regarding the acquisition of movable and immovable assets. On the basis of an inquiry, it was found that the Petitioners had amassed assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. Accordingly, a search was conducted in connection with Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.6 of 2005 on the allegation of accumulation of disproportionate assets.

4. In the course of investigation, during the check period from 12.12.1978 to 11.03.2005, the Petitioners were found to have accumulated disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.45,04,618.10, which was allegedly in excess of their known sources of income

and Charge sheet was filed accordingly. As the Petitioners plead not guilty faced trial.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses and proved documents from Ext.1 to Ext.76/1, whereas the defence examined 39 witnesses and proved 283 documents marked as Ext.A to Ext.AAAAA/1. The learned Trial Court, upon assessment of the evidence on record, found the Petitioners to have amassed assets disproportionate to their known sources of income to the tune of Rs.29,52,899.00, and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated above.

6. Mr. Mund, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and arrived at an erroneous conclusion by misinterpreting the law and facts, and by adopting a faulty calculation of assets while excluding relevant sources of income and documentary evidence adduced by the Appellants. He also submitted that the learned Trial Court arbitrarily rejected material evidence including salary records, allowances, incentives, and sanctioned loans as well as credible documentary and oral evidence adduced by the Appellants thereby leading to a perverse finding of guilt. According to Mr. Mund, if the conviction is not stayed, it would cause serious and irreversible civil consequences to the Petitioners, particularly from the point of view that the Petitioner No.1, a retired public servant who is of considerable age, is entirely dependent on his pension which he was receiving provisionally. It was also submitted that all the savings accounts have been frozen and he has been deprived of post-retirement

benefits due to the vigilance case. His wife, who also faced trial as an abettor, is a government employee and has been issued with a show-cause notice regarding withholding of her pension. Mr. Mund therefore contended that although mere filing of an appeal does not automatically warrant stay of conviction, the Court may grant such stay in exceptional circumstances to prevent injustice, particularly where the sentence is short, the accused is a senior citizen, and grave prejudice would result otherwise. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sailendra Kumar Tamotia vs. Republic of India, reported in (2009) 08 OHC CK 0070.

7. Mr. Das, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the State (Vigilance), on the other hand, vehemently opposed the contentions of the Petitioners and submitted that the impugned judgment is based on a formidable and cogent appreciation of the evidence on record. It was further contended that the Trial Court exhaustively examined all aspects of the case and rightly concluded that the Petitioners had accumulated disproportionate assets substantially exceeding their known sources of income. He relied upon judicial precedents wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have consistently deprecated granting stay of conviction in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

8. In K.C. Sareen vs. C.B.I., Chandigarh, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 584, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"11. The legal position, therefore, is this: though the power to suspend an order of conviction, apart from the order of sentence, is not alien to Section 389(1) of the Code, its exercise should be limited to very exceptional cases. Merely because the convicted person files an appeal in challenge of the conviction, the Court should

not suspend the operation of the order of conviction. The Court has a duty to look at tall aspects including the ramifications of keeping such conviction in abeyance. It is in the light of the above legal position that we have to examine the question as to what should be the position when a public servant is convicted of an offence under the PC Act. No doubt when the appellate Court admits the appeal filed in challenge of the conviction and sentence for the offence under the PC Act, the superior Court should normally suspend the sentence of imprisonment until disposal of the appeal, because refusal thereof would render the very appeal otiose unless such appeal could be heard soon after the filing of the appeal. But suspension of conviction of the offence under the PC Act, de hors the sentence of imprisonment as a sequel thereto, is different matter."

The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision and other binding precedents, this Court is of the considered view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners seeking stay of conviction are matters that require adjudication in the Appeal itself. Detailed appreciation of evidence can only be undertaken at the stage of final hearing of the Appeal.

9. It is well settled that under Section 389 Cr.P.C., stay of conviction may be granted only in rare and exceptional cases, where compelling circumstances exist showing that non-grant of stay would cause irreversible injustice or irretrievable damage. Mere pendency of the Appeal or the possibility of delayed disposal cannot, by itself, be a ground to stay the conviction. From the materials on record, it is evident that there is ample oral and documentary evidence establishing the accumulation of disproportionate assets by the Petitioners far beyond their known sources of income, and that they failed to disclose their property

statements to the competent authority during their service period between 1997 and 2005.

10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds no compelling or exceptional reason to stay the conviction. Accordingly, the prayer for stay of conviction stands rejected. The I.A., being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

AKPradhan

Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 27-Nov-2025 15:14:15