[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Binapani Mohanta & Anr vs State Of Odisha (Vig) ....... Opposite ... on 8 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 1016 of 2026
Binapani Mohanta & Anr. ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. Arjun Charan Behera, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha (VIG) ....... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. N. Moharana, Standing Counsel
for the Vigilance Department
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
08.04.2026
Order No.
01.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioners, in this application under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., have challenged the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the
learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Baripada in VGR No.26 of 2013
(T.C. No.1382016) rejecting their application filed under Section
311 of the Cr.P.C.
3. Heard.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the advocate
engaged on behalf of the Petitioners before the court below has
failed to cross examine the P.W. Nos.14, 19 and 21 at the time of
adducing their evidence in chief. He further submits that those
witnesses are the most important witnesses who can explain the
income, expenditure and assets of the accused persons. If those
witnesses are not cross-examined, the Petitioners will be highly
prejudiced. He further submits that the learned trial court has
declined those witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the
Petitioners had filed the application under Section 311 of the
Cr.P.C. for recalling the aforesaid witnesses. However, the
learned trial court rejected the said application. Hence, the
Petitioners are constrained to approach this Court.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department submits
that the P.Ws.14, 19 and 21 were examined in presence of the
learned defence counsel who had ample opportunity to cross-
examine them. But, the learned defence counsel deliberately did
not cross-examine the said witnesses for which the trial court had
declined the cross-examination of P.W.14,19 and 21. He further
submits that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the
application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioners.
The learned trial court in the order dated 5.12.2025 has observed
as follows:
"On perusal of the case record, it is seen that P.W.14 has been examined
on 13.01.2020 and the Court has declined the the cross-examination of the
said witness on the day. In the meantime seven more witnesses have
already been examined, cross-examined and discharged. It can not be said
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU cross-examine P.W.14. The petition does not reveal the specific reason for
not cross-examining the aforesaid witness. The learned defence counsel
was actively participated in the trial and he cannot plead unavoidable
circumstances. P.W.14 was examined on 13.01.2020 and the present
petition has been filed after lapse of more than five years which shows the
delaytary tactic of the defence. This is a case of the year 2013 and now the
case stands posted for recording the statements of the accused persons after
closer of the case of the prosecution. The petition seems to have been filed
at a very belated stage and that too without having any substance. Having
regards to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in
the petition. Accordingly it stands rejected. Put up on 06.12.2025 for
recording of statements of accused persons U/s-313, Cr.P.C/ U/s-351,
BNSS. The accused persons are directed to remain present in persons on
the date fixed."
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department
further submits that the learned trial court has also observed as
follows in its order dated 03.01.2026:
"On further perusal it is found that on 25.11.2025 the witness is present
through V.C. Learned defence counsel is also present but did not choose to
further cross-examine the witness. Hence, further cross-examination of the
witness is declined.
On further perusal it is found in the meanUme.learned Spl. P.P is
declined the rest of the charge sheeted witnesses. Now case is posted for
accused statement. It can not be said that no due opportunity has been
given to the learned defence counsel to cross-examine P.W.19 and RW.21.
The petition does not reveal the specific reason for not crossexamining the
aforesaid witness. The learned defence counsel was actively participated in
the trial and he cannot plead unavoidable circumstances. P.W.19 and
P.W.21 were examined on 01.08.2022,13.03.2024 and 18.02.2025,
11.03.2025, 09.07.2025,19.11.2025 & 25.11.2025 respectively and the
present petition has been filed at the stage of accused statement which
shows the delaytory tactic of the defence. This is a case of the year 2013
and now the case stands posted for recording the statements of the accused
persons after closer of the case of the prosecution. The petition seems to
have been filed at a very belated stage and that too without having any
substance. Having regards to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do
not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly it stands rejected. Put up
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Cr.P.C/ U/s-351, BNSS. The accused persons are directed to remain
present in persons on the date fixed."
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, this
Court is of the opinion that the application under Section 311 of
the Cr.P.C. filed by the defence in the aforesaid case does not
have any merit for any consideration. In fact, learned Special
Judge (Vigilance), Baripada very carefully examining each and
every question has recorded his opinion as to how the same is not
relevant for which application for recalling of P.Ws.14, 19 and 21
was rejected.
9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
