Disposed¶20

Sarat Pal@Sarat Kumar Pal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Sept 2024CRLMC/634/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLMC No.634 of 2022; Sarat Pal @ Sarat Kumar Pal vs State of Odisha; High Court of Orissa, Cuttack; Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra; order dated 04.09.2024; challenge to order of cognizance; sanction requirement; P.C. Act Section 13(2)/13(1)(d); IPC Sections 420/120-B; Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.22 of 2010; TR No.67 of 2013; Special Judge (Vigilance) Cuttack; Indira Awas Yojana; driver/B.D.O.; liberty to argue at framing of charge; disposed of; no merits decided; no case law cited.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to urge all points before the Court below at the time of framing of the charge; CRLMC disposed of on that basis. ¶20

Sarat Pal@Sarat Kumar Pal Vs State of Odisha — Corruption | Orissa HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to urge all points before the Court below at the time of framing of the charge; CRLMC disposed of on that basis.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether sanction was required to prosecute the petitioner, given counsel's submission that the petitioner, working as a driver in the Office of the B.D.O., had availed the facility under the colour of duty (recorded as: 'the sanction was not required to prosecute him'). +1 more

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to enter into the merits of the case at this stage, since the petitioner's application challenges the order of cognizance; the sanction question was expressly left to be urged before the Court below.

¶19

Key takeaways

The petitioner was granted liberty to urge all the points before the Court below at the time of framing of the charge, and with that liberty the CRLMC was disposed of.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.), Order No.17 dated 04.09.2024 in CRLMC No.634 of 2022 — Sarat Pal @ Sarat Kumar Pal v. State of Odisha. The petitioner, an accused in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.22 of 2010 / TR No.67 of 2013 (offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act read with Sections 420/120-B IPC) pending before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack, challenged the order of cognizance. He was alleged to have availed the Indira Awas Yojana facility and withdrawn money in connivance with the principal accused, returning the amount when the case was registered. Counsel for the petitioner submitted on the sanction question in light of his position as a driver working in the Office of the B.D.O. under the colour of duty; the State (ASC, Vigilance) submitted that no sanction is required for the Section 120-B IPC charge. Declining to enter into the merits at that stage, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to urge all points before the Court below at the time of framing of the charge and disposed of the CRLMC. No precedent was cited or decided upon.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.634 of 2022

¶3

Sarat Pal @ Sarat Kumar Pal …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Anirudha Das, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opp. Party Mr.N.Maharana, ASC, Vigilance

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Order No.

ORDER

04.09.2024

1. The petitioner is an accused in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.22 of 2010 corresponding to TR No.67 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act read with Sections 420/120-B of the IPC pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack.

¶14

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had availed the facility under the Indira Awas Yojana Scheme and withdrawn the money in connivance with the principal accused. When the case was registered against him, he returned the said amount.

¶15

3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶16

Page 1 of 1

¶17

submits that since the petitioner was working as a driver and he had availed the facility in the capacity of a driver working in the Office of the B.D.O., that comes under the colour of the duty, hence the sanction was not required to prosecute him.

¶18

4. Mr. Maharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department submits that the petitioner is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC for which the sanction is not required.

¶19

5. I am not inclined to enter into the merits of the case at this stage, as the petitioner is challenging the order of cognizance. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to urge all the points before the Court below at the time of framing of the charge.

¶20

6. With the aforementioned liberty, the CRLMC is disposed of.

(S.S. Mishra)

Judge

Subhasis

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 05-Sep-2024 11:01:19

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Sarat Pal@Sarat Kumar Pal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarat Pal@Sarat Kumar Pal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susanta Kumar Barik Vs State of Odisha

Rajani Pradhan @ Naik Vs State of Odisha

Anil Khora Vs State of Odisha

Bisambar Kadraka Vs State of Odisha

Praphula Kumar Barik Vs State of Odisha

Basudev Behera Vs State of Odisha