Orissa High Court
Srivananda Pattnayak vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) .... Opposite ... on 4 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
TRPCRL No.68 of 2025
Srivananda Pattnayak .... Petitioner
Mr. M. K.Nayak, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vig.) .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. K. Das, SC (Vig.)
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
04.09.2025
Order No.
02. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This transfer petition has been preferred by the
Petitioner, who is around 65 years old and is the accused
person in VGR Case No.14 of 2014, arising out of Balasore,
Vig. P.S. Case No.52 dated 30.12.2014 (State of Odisha
Vrs. Srivananda Pattnayak), pending in the Court of
learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Keonjhar. A prayer has
been made for transfer of the said proceeding to the Court
of learned District-Cum-Sessions Judge, Berhampur, Dist-
Ganjam on the grounds that no person is available to take
care of the Petitioner after demise of his spouse & younger
son excepting his elder son, who is at present working at
Gurgaon. That apart, because of his old age, he is facing
difficulties to travel on each and every date to appear before
the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar by
travelling from Berhampur, Ganjam, which is around 386
KMs away.
3. Mr. S. K. Das, learned Standing Counsel (Vig.), files
website copy of the Judgment of Supreme Court in Transfer
Petition (CRL.) No.37 of 2009 (Bhiaru Ram & others Vrs.
Central Bureau of Investigation & others) so also the
written instruction received from the Special P.P. Vigilance,
Keonjhar vide letter dated 02.09.2025, to oppose such
prayer for transfer , which are taken on record.
4. As has been averred in the I.A. filed in the transfer
petition, the Petitioner has stated that he has already
appeared before the Court below on 1st August, 2024 on
being summoned vide notice dated 2nd June, 2024.
5. Law is well settled that mere inconvenience of an
accused person may not be sufficient ground for exercise of
power of transfer. It must be shown that the trial in the
chosen forum will result in failure of justice. That apart,
there is no such pleadings in the transfer petition to justify
such prayer and the grounds, which have been averred are
his old age, distance and nonavailability of care taker, who
can take care of the Petitioner after the sad demise of his
spouse and younger son.
6. The Supreme Court in Bhiaru Ram & others (supra),
while considering an application for transfer of a vigilance
proceeding, vide Paragraph No.9, held as follows:
"9) A perusal of the charge sheet containing all
these details clearly shows that witnesses to
be examined are not only from Jaipur,
Rajasthan, but also from various other places
including Mumbai. Though the petitioners may
have a little inconvenience, the mere
inconvenience may not be sufficient ground for
the exercise of power of transfer but it must be
shown that the trial in the chosen forum will
result in failure of justice. We have already
pointed out that except the plea of
inconvenience on the ground that they have to
come all the way from Rajasthan no other
reason was pressed into service. Even, the
request for transfer to Delhi cannot be accepted
since it would not be beneficial either to the
petitioners or to the prosecution. In fact, the
main accused, respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have not
filed any petition seeking transfer. In such
circumstances, the plea of the petitioners for
transfer of the case from the Court of Special
Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai to Special Judge,
CBI, Jaipur on the ground of inconvenience
cannot be accepted."
7. That apart, the instruction received from the Special
P.P. Vigilance, Keonjhar , being relevant, is extracted below:
"To
The Superintendent of Police Vigilance
Balasore Division, Balasore.
Ref:- Memo No.1986/P.I. Vig. BD. Date
18.08.2025.
Sub;- Compliance in the TRPCRL
No.68/2025 arising Balasore Vigilance PS Case
No.52/2014 State Vrs. Sibananda Pattanaik.
Sir,
With reference to the subject cited above, it
is to intimate that The VGR Case No.14/14, TR
No.4/22 arising out of Balasore Vigilance PS
Case No.52 dtd.30.12.2014 has been posted to
dtd. 09.09.2025 for Hearing on petition. In this
case there are 46 numbers of Charge Sheet
witnesses out of them. The charge sheet
witnesses No.2,3,4,6,14,24 and 46 are
belonging to Keonjhar District. The Charge
Sheet witnesses-10 belongs to Baragarh. C.S.
Witnesses No.11 Belongs to Kalahandi District.
C.S. witnesses No.12 and 19 belong to
Newpada. C.S. witnesses No.20,21,25,28,42
and 43 belong to Bhubaneswar. C.S. witnesses
26 belongs to Balasore. C.S. witnesses 27 and
44 belong to Cuttack. C.S. witnesses No.38
belongs to Bhabanipatana. C.S. witnesses 41
belongs to Kalahandi.
It is submitted that it will be inconvenient
for the prosecution witnesses to attend before
the District Cum Sessions Judge Berhampur
Ganjam for in case of transfer the case from
Keonjhar to Barahampur.
This is for your kind information and
necessary action.
Sd/-
Spl.P.P. Vigilance,
Keonjhar"
8. From such instruction received from the Special PP
Vigilance Keonjhar, it is well evident that, out of 46
numbers of charge sheet witnesses, witness No.2,3,4,6, 14,
24 and 46 belong to Keonjhar District, whereas the charge
sheet witness No.10 belongs to Baragarh. Similarly, other
witnesses also belong to different Districts such as,
Kalahandi, Nuapada, Balasore, Cuttack. Some of the
charge sheet witnesses also belong to Bhubaneswar and
Bhabanipatana., It may cause inconvenience for the
prosecution witnesses to attend the proceeding before the
District-cum-Sessions Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam, if the
case is transferred from the concerned Court at Keonjhar.
Hence, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for
transfer.
9. Accordingly, the Transfer petition stands dismissed.
10. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the Petitioner
submits that being noticed, the Petitioner appeared in
person before the Court of learned Special Judge Vigilance
and he is yet to engage a lawyer. Hence, it is made clear
that dismissal of the transfer petition shall not be a bar for
the Petitioner to engage a lawyer, who can seek remedies
for dispensing with his personal attendance, if the
Petitioner feels any difficulty on any date to remain
physically present before the concerned Court. Apart from
that, he may also seek leave of the concerned Court to
appear through virtual mode.
11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
(S. K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Mona
Location: High Court of Orissa
