Orissa High Court
Prasanta Kumar Parija vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) .... ... on 22 September, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
Signature Not Verified
AFR
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 23-Sep-2025 15:47:37 CRLREV No.650 of 2024
Prasanta Kumar Parija .... Petitioner
Mr. G. M. Rath, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vigilance) .... Opposite Party
Mr. Sangram Das, SC (Vigilance)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 22.09.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. The legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated
28.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack
in T.R. Case No.17 of 2019 has been called in question in this
Revision.
2. The background facts of the case are that the Inspector,
Vigilance Cell, Cuttack, alleged charges of corruption against the
Petitioner and others in relation to the misuse of coal linkage
allotted by the Government at subsidised rates to non-existent firms,
in connivance with officials of the District Industries Centre (DIC),
Jagatpur, and the Odisha Small Industries Corporation (OSIC),
Cuttack. According to the Petitioner, the Government of India
formulated a new Coal Distribution Policy vide Resolution
No.23011/4/2007 dated 18.10.2007, under which State
Governments were requested to assess the genuine requirements of
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
small and medium sectors such as smokeless fuel units, brick kilns,
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
and coke oven units, on a transparent and scientific basis. The
Date: 23-Sep-2025 15:47:37
Policy envisaged distribution of coal to small-scale industries
whose requirements were less than 4200 MT per year, and who
otherwise had no access to purchase coal or conclude Fuel Supply
Agreements (FSA) with companies. Such industries were to draw
coal through State-notified agencies such as the National
Cooperative Consumer Federation (NCCF) and the National Small
Industries Corporation (NSIC), as suited to each State Government.
Consequently, by Notification dated 13.08.2008, the State
Government declared the Odisha Cooperative Consumer Federation
(OCCF) as the State Nodal Agency for distribution of coal to
MSMEs in the State. The Odisha Coal Distribution Policy specified
the procedure for such distribution. Following its appointment,
OCCF engaged a marketing agent, namely M/s. Vinayak Mineral.
As per the laid down procedure, eligible MSME units, upon
registration and verification by the DIC, were to be recommended
to OCCF, which would thereafter place orders with Mahanadi
Coalfields Limited (MCL) by depositing the requisite amount,
pursuant to which MCL would issue road delivery orders in favour
of OCCF for onward supply to MSMEs.
It is alleged that officials of the DIC, Jagatpur,
recommended five fake and non-existent MSMEs for allotment of
coal to OCCF, without following the mandatory formalities
envisaged in the Policy, and without verification of their existence,
operations, or annual installed capacity. On the basis of such
recommendations, OCCF placed booking orders with MCL from
time to time and, upon receipt of road delivery orders, supplied coal
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
through its marketing agent to those MSMEs. The allegation is that
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
the Government officials, along with private persons, committed
Date: 23-Sep-2025 15:47:37
criminal misconduct by facilitating sale of coal to fictitious
MSMEs, thereby deriving unlawful pecuniary gain to the tune of
Rs.12,90,069.94, at the cost of deserving MSMEs. Acting on these
allegations, the Inspector, Vigilance Special Cell, registered Cuttack
Vigilance P.S. Case No.45 of 2010 dated 30.06.2010 under Section
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, and Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal
Code. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet No.11 of
2018 was submitted under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)
of the P.C. Act against officials of the DIC and OCCF. The
gravamen of the charge-sheet is that bogus firms were identified by
the DIC and supplied with coal procured at subsidised rates, which
was then diverted to the open market. The Government, upon
perusal of the charge-sheet, declined to accord sanction for
prosecution against the then General Manager, DIC, Jagatpur, Shri
Sitikanta Sarangi, and the then Assistant Manager (Projects), DIC,
Jagatpur, Shri Sailendra Narayan Nayak. However, sanction for
prosecution was accorded against the present Petitioner.
3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner, in the course of
hearing, submitted that the learned Special Judge, Vigilance,
Cuttack, by order dated 11.07.2019, took cognizance of the offence
implicating the Petitioner and issued process. He further submitted
that Shri Sitikanta Sarangi and Shri Sailendra Narayan Nayak had
approached this Court in CRLREV No.153 of 2020 and CRLREV
No.883 of 2019 respectively, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this
Court was pleased to set aside the order of cognizance. According
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
to Mr. Rath, in such circumstances, the allegations against the
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
present Petitioner, being on the same footing, ought to have been
Date: 23-Sep-2025 15:47:37
appreciated by the learned court below; however, without proper
application of judicial mind, cognizance was taken despite there
being no element of criminality against the Petitioner. It was further
contended that the Petitioner was in no way responsible for any
recommendation leading to loss to the State exchequer, and that the
discretion exercised by the learned trial court in issuing process was
capricious and arbitrary, based on no evidence on record, and as
such the same is liable to be quashed.
4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the State (Vigilance), on the
other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on
behalf of the Petitioner. He contended that the Petitioner cannot be
equated with those accused persons in whose favour a Coordinate
Bench of this Court had set aside the order of cognizance, inasmuch
as the Government had declined to accord sanction for their
prosecution, whereas sanction has been duly accorded against the
present Petitioner by the competent authority. It was further
submitted that the Petitioner stands directly attributed with the
allegation of conspiracy in recommending the names of non-
existent MSME units, and that the grounds urged by the Petitioner
pertain to matters of adjudication during trial. Since sufficient
material exists to raise a presumption that the Petitioner has
committed the offences alleged, the learned trial court cannot be
said to have committed any illegality in taking cognizance, and the
impugned order does not warrant interference.
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Sr. Stenographer The law is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is
Date: 23-Sep-2025 15:47:37
required to confine itself to the record of the case and the
documents submitted therewith. If, on such consideration, the Court
forms the view that there exists no sufficient ground to proceed
against the accused, an order of discharge must follow,
accompanied by reasons. What is to be seen at this stage is not the
sufficiency of the evidence for conviction, but whether the materials
on record, taken at their face value, disclose a prima facie case
connecting the accused with the alleged offence.
6. In the present case, the allegation centres around misuse of
subsidised coal linkage through non-existent MSME units, causing
pecuniary loss to the State exchequer. The prosecution relies upon
inspection reports said to have been submitted by the Petitioner in
his capacity as Industrial Promotion Officer, which, according to
the Vigilance, facilitated allotment of coal to bogus units. The
investigative materials further disclose that coal shown as supplied
to such units was in fact diverted and sold in the open market. The
Petitioner's plea that he merely acted upon documents placed
before him, and that cognisance against similarly placed co-accused
has been set aside, are arguments which may have relevance at the
stage of trial. However, it is also evident from the record that
sanction for prosecution was declined in respect of those officers,
whereas sanction has been duly accorded against the present
Petitioner. The distinction is of legal significance, and the trial court
was justified in treating the Petitioner's case differently.
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Sr. Stenographer On perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
learned Special Judge, Vigilance, applied the correct test and found
Date: 23-Sep-2025 15:47:37
prima facie material sufficient to proceed against the Petitioner. At
this stage, the Court cannot weigh the probative value of the
evidence or undertake a roving enquiry into the merits of the
prosecution case. The contentions urged by the Petitioner raise
questions of fact and appreciation of evidence, which are to be
adjudicated during trial.
8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned order dated 28.09.2024 suffers from no perversity or
jurisdictional error warranting interference. The Revision petition
is, therefore, devoid of merit and stands dismissed.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
A.K.Pradhan
