Allowed

Gobinda Chandra Panda v. Superintendent Police,Vigilance Balasore

Orissa HC28 Oct 2021CRLMC/100/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the refusal to supply copies of audit reports. The Court observed that the documents were not voluminous and modified the lower court order to mandatorily supply the copies.

What did the court decide?

Copies of documents at serial nos. 1 and 5 of the petition schedule must be supplied to the petitioner-accused.

Gobinda Chandra Panda Vs Superintendent… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 100 of 2021

¶3

Gobinda Chandra Panda

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Biswajit Mohapatra,

¶6

Advocate

¶7

-Versus -

¶8

Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, …. Opposite Parties Balasore & Others.

¶9

Mr. N. Maharana, Addl. Standing Counsel (Vig.)

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER_

28.10.2021

Order No. 04.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Heard Mr. B. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Maharana, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for Vigilance.

¶16

The petitioner challenges the order dated 19.02.2020 (Annexure-2) passed by the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore in T.R. No. 03 of 2015, whereby, his application for supply of documents was allowed in part.

¶17

The petitioner is one of the accused in T.R. No. 03 of 2015 pending in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore for alleged commission of offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 409/120-B of IPC.

¶18

In course of trial, the petitioner filed a petition on 21.08.2018 with a prayer to supply certain documents as mentioned in the schedule appended to the said petition. Out of six documents sought by the petitioner, learned Court below by the impugned order directed that copies of four documents as at serial nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 of the schedule be

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

supplied to the petitioner-accused and in so far as the documents at serial nos. 1 and 5 are concerned, it was held that the same being voluminous, the accused may resort to the second proviso of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and opt for inspection of the same either personally or through his pleader in Court on proper application.

¶21

Mr. Biswajit Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that through permission has been granted to inspect the documents in Court, yet it would not be adequate to prepare the defence of the case and that unless the copies of the documents are supplied, the accused would be grossly prejudiced. 7. Mr. M. Maharana, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for Vigilance submits that since learned Court below granted the petitioner liberty to inspect the documents in Court either personally or through his lawyer, the question of prejudice does not arise.

¶22

Having regard to the rival submissions made and the fact that the documents in question do not appear to be very voluminous, inasmuch as, the final audit report as at serial no. 5 consists of 77 sheets and the special audit report as at serial no.1 consists of only 8 sheets, there should not be any problem in furnishing copies thereof to the accusedpetitioner so as to enable him to prepare his defence properly as also to ensure a fair trial.

¶23

The petition is therefore, allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the copies of the documents as at serial nos. 1 and 5 of the schedule appended to the petition on 21.08.2018 shall be supplied to the petitioner-accused.

¶24

The CRLMC is disposed of.

¶25

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶26

( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶27

A.K. Rana

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Gobinda Chandra Panda v. Superintendent Police,Vigilance Balasore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gobinda Chandra Panda v. Superintendent Police,Vigilance Balasore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pitabasa Pangi @ Pita Vs State of Odisha

Akshya Kumar Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Ranjit Kumar Guru@Tukuna Vs State of Odisha

Tinku @ Bana @ Bhanupratap Samal Vs State of Odisha

Nanda Oram Vs State of Odisha

Mabud Mallick @ Mebub Mallik Vs State of Orissa