Orissa High Court
Kalu Charan Palleyi vs State Of Odisha(Vig.) ..... Opposite ... on 20 September, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3837 of 2025
Kalu Charan Palleyi ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Purna Chandra Das
-versus-
State Of Odisha(vig.) ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. N.Maharana
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
20.09.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
standing counsel for the Vigilance Department. Perused the
application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of
B.N.S.S. the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated
02.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge Vigilance, Phulbani, Kandhamal in
G.R. Case No.06 of 2022.
4. On perusal of the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 at
Anenxure-1, this Court observes that an application was filed at
the instance of the accused-petitioner before the learned trial
court with a prayer to direct the prosecution to examine Abhijit
Padhy, Superintending Engineer, TPSODL, Electrical Circle,
Bhanjanagar, who had accorded sanction for prosecution
against the accused. The learned trial court after hearing the
counsel appearing for both sides, disposed of the application
vide order dated 02.09.2025 dismissing the same with an
observation that the sanction order has already been proved by
Exhibit-P/22 through PW-5. As such it was held that the
sanction order is not again required to be proved through the
Superintending Engineer as the consent therein is self-
indicative of the fact that after going through the detailed
record, the sanction order has been given. Accordingly, the
learned trial court has come to a conclusion that the
examination of the Superintending Engineer who had granted
sanction is not required in this case.
5. While assailing the aforesaid order of the learned trial
court, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
earmarking of Exhibit of the sanction order does not prove the
contents thereof. He further submitted that sanction was
specifically granted by the Superintending Engineer who had
not been shown as an witness and that he has not been
examined to prove his whole sanction order. It was also
contended that no third party can prove such a document. The
sanction order being a letter issued by the Superintending
Engineer, and the Superintending Engineer being a nature
thereof was supposed to come to the witness box and depose
before the Court that the letter has been issued under his
signature thereby granting sanction for prosecution. In such
view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended
that the prayer to examine the Superintending Engineer having
been rejected, the accused-petitioner is seriously prejudiced.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department
on the other hand contended that the sanction order has already
been proved through PW-5 and that the sanctioning authority is
not required to be examined to prove Exhibit-P/22 which is
allegedly a sanction order. He further submitted that a sanction
order can very well be proved through other witnesses
associated of the office of the Sanctioning Authority and that
the prosecution is not required to examine the Sanctioning
Authority itself. On such ground, learned Standing Counsel for
the Vigilance Department submitted that the application filed
by the petitioner is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the background
facts as well as on a close scrutiny of the impugned order and
other documents annexed to the application, this Court prima
facie observed that petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection
of his prayer to examine the Sanctioning Authority vide order
dated 02.09.2025, has approached this Court by filing the
present application. It is the matter of record that the sanction
order has been earmarked and as an Exhibit through PW-5 and
admittedly he was not Sanctioning Authority. Marking of such
sanction order as executed is disputed by the petitioner in the
present application. Taking into consideration the rival
contentions raised with regard to the Exhibit-P/22, this Court
while disposing of the present application, grants liberty to the
petitioner to raise this point at the time of final hearing. It is
open to the accused-Petitioner to advance argument on the
question of validity of Exhibit-P/22 and the impact of non-
examination of the sanctioning authority in this case. In the
event such a ground is raised the learned trial court shall
specifically deal with such ground at the time of delivery of the
final judgment.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
CRLMC stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
