Disposed

Gaya Kumar Senapati v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

Orissa HC15 Nov 2021CRLREV/805/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in criminal revision disposed of the petition over a Section 401 CrPC order rejecting a discharge plea under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to raise all contentions during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to raise all contentions at the time of trial which shall be considered in accordance with law.

Gaya Kumar Senapati Vs State of Odisha(Vig.) — Corruption | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No. 805 of 2019

¶3

Gaya Kumar Senapati …. Petitioner Mr. Manoj Ku. Pati, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opposite Parties Mr. Sangram Das, Standing Counsel (Vigilance)

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

Order No.

ORDER

15.11.2021

The matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

¶11

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel (Vigilance ).

¶12

This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna in G.R. No. 05 of 2018 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner against whom chargesheet had been submitted for commission of offences punishable under Section 7, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶13

The learned counsel submits that the learned Court has acted mechanically and not sifted through the materials on record while rejecting his application for discharge, which violates the mandate of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶14

He further submits that he will raise his contentions:- i) whether by the time the accused demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant, any official work was pending with him for which he misused his official position illegally and demanded gratification, ii) As G.R. No. 05 of 2018 involved the offences punishable for less than 7 years for which the accused persons had already been noticed in term of Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. and hence allegation of demand of illegal gratification by

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

the petitioner on 15.03.2018 is not believable, iii) primary onus lies with the prosecution to make out a case and presumption is not attracted; and other contentions at the time of hearing and direction may be issued to for consideration of the same.

¶17

I find that the learned trial court has passed a reasoned order refusing to discharge the petitioner. But since the consideration at the time of considering an application for discharge and at the time of hearing of the case (during trial) are different, I dispose of this Criminal Revision granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions at the time of trial, which shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, the Criminal Revision is disposed

¶19

of.

¶20

of.
( Savitri Ratho)
Judge
puspa

¶21

Page 2 of 2

Gaya Kumar Senapati v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaya Kumar Senapati v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

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

Gopal Chandra Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Saswati Mitra Vs State of Odisha

Somnath Acharya Vs State of Odisha

Abhimanyu Mishra Vs Souri Shankar Parida

Prasant Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Dillip Singh Vs State of Orissa