Disposed

Jagadish Misra v. State

Orissa HC14 Aug 2024CRLREV/702/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision challenging cognizance taken by Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar in a corruption case. The revision had lain pending since 2014 with interim protection from arrest; co-accused trials were advanced. The Court declined to entertain it, directed surrender/appearance, and asked the trial court to consider bail and Section 205 CrPC sympathetically.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jagadish Misra Vs State — Corruption | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.702 of 2014

¶3

Jagadish Misra …. Petitioner Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate & Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Senior Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & others

¶6

…. Opp. Parties Mr. N.C. Panigrahi, Senior Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Order No.

ORDER

14.08.2024

1 . The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, assailing the order dated 02.01.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar in VGR No.5/13, whereby the Court below has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B/420/379/468/409/411 of the

¶14

Page 1 of 7

¶15

IPC against the petitioner and 24 other accused persons.

¶16

2. The present petition has been pending since 2014. The matter was heard several times by my predecessor courts and the judgment was reserved. However, subsequently, the matter was listed before the Court for clarification. At the interregnum stage, when the matter was listed before the Court on 05.02.2016, this Court passed the following order:

¶17

“This matter was heard by this Court and order was reserved, but as this Court desired to get some points clarified, this matter was listed on 02.02.2016 and subsequently, has come today under the heading “TO BE MENTIONED”. Misc. Case No.66 of 2016 filed by the petitioner seeking protection in connection with V.G.R. Case No.5 of 2013, pending before the learned Spl. Judge (V), Keonjhar as he has undergone cardiac surgery and require frequent medical check-up and in this pending criminal revision, he has a fair chance of success, has also been placed today on being mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old and aged man and he has undergone cardiac surgery recently due to heart stroke and discharged from the hospital five days before, he is to undergo further check-up and, as such, he may be protected till disposal of this criminal revision.

¶19

Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1-Vigilance Department submits that the copy of the Misc. Case was served on him on day before yesterday and seeks for some time to obtain necessary instruction in the matter.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid fact, list this matter on 16^th of February, 2016 for consideration of the

¶21

Page 2 of 7

¶22

Misc. Case and for further hearing of the criminal revision under the heading “TO BE MENTIONED”, but till next date of listing, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with V.G.R. Case No.5 of 2013. Pending before the learned Spl. Judge (V), Keonjhar.”

¶23

The said order was again reiterated on 10.03.2016, which reads as under:

¶24

“Heard Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department.

¶25

The petitioner in this misc. case application sought for interim protection during pendency of the criminal revision, inasmuch as he is suffering cardiac problem and has undergone surgery and his regular medical check-up is required.

¶26

Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department on instruction submits that the petitioner’s ailment as per the medical report furnished by the petitioner bears the truth. It appears that the earlier prayer for interim protection of the petitioner was refused. But, now the petitioner needs protection on the ground of his suffering cardiac problem as he has undergone cardiac surgery and required regular medical check-up for the same, which is not disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since hearing of the criminal revision is concluded, but the criminal revision figures in the list for certain clarification and the petitioner is required for regular medical check-up, on humanitarian ground, he be protected till disposal of the criminal revision, particularly when he has no chance of abscondance and ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court while protecting him.

¶27

Page 3 of 7

¶28

Learned senior counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department submits that the submission advanced with regard to the ailment of the petitioner bears the truth and the hearing of the criminal revision is complete, but for certain clarifications, criminal revision is posted today. In such premises, he submits, the Court may pass such order as it deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶29

Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions made, especially the fact that the petitioner has undergone cardiac surgery and needs regular medical check-up for the same and hearing of the criminal revision is complete and it is posted today for certain clarifications, also there is no material that the petitioner shall abscond and the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the conditions to be imposed, it is ordered that the petitioner shall not be arrested till disposal of the criminal revision subject to the condition that he shall appear before the Vigilance Police as and when directed in connection with the present case .”

¶30

3. The aforementioned interim order has been in force till date. It appears from the record that the present petitioner did not appear before the Court below and has been availing the protection order of this Court. Therefore, eventually the trial qua the present petitioner could not commence. Since the other co- accused persons have already appeared before the Court and the trial has been split up, the trial concerning the other co-accused persons is proceeding at an expected pace. About 55 Prosecution Witnesses have already been examined out of about 150 witnesses. Therefore, the trial of the co-accused persons is at a very advanced stage, whereas, in

¶31

Page 4 of 7

¶32

absentia, the trial of the present petitioner has not even started.

¶33

4. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition at this advanced stage. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition assailing the impugned order dated 02.01.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar in VGR No.5/13, whereby cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and the other 24 co-accused persons has been taken, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is turned down.

¶34

5. At this stage, Mr. Asok Mohanty and Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submit that the petitioner is now 75 years old. Apart from his sufferings as reflected on record due to some Cardiac issue, he has also been suffering from multiple age related issues. They have placed on record the Medical report dated 19.05.2024, which reveals that the petitioner is suffering from myocardial strain, low BP and pain in chest. The petitioner has also undergone cardiac surgery.

¶35

6. In a nutshell, learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner submit that the health condition of the petitioner is very precarious. Therefore, he may not be in a position to regularly appear before the Court to defend himself.

¶36

7. Mr. N.C. Panigrahi, learned Senior Advocate

¶37

Page 5 of 7

¶38

appearing for the Vigilance Department vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that under the garb of the interim order, the petitioner has successfully dragged the prosecution for more than one decade and the present proceeding is being pressed only to achieve the well-designed ploy to further prolong the trial.

¶39

8. Regard being had to the age and the health condition of the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the petitioner shall surrender/appear before the Court below on or before 05.09.2024 and move appropriate application before the Court below in accordance with law, to be considered sympathetically.

¶40

9. Since the petitioner has been protected by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2016 and 10.03.2016 and the same has been in operation till date, needless to say that if the application for bail is moved by the petitioner, the Ld trial court shall consider the same in the light of the orders passed by this Court. Owing to the age and the precarious health condition of the petitioner, if the petitioner moves any application under Section 205 of Cr. P.C., the same shall also be considered sympathetically.

¶41

10. However, it is made clear that, the petitioner shall appear before the Court below either by Video Conferencing mode or through his counsel and in no case, due to the want of his presence, the pace of the

¶42

Page 6 of 7

¶43

trial shall be impeded.

¶44

11. With the aforementioned observation, the CRLREV is disposed of.

¶45

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶46

Subhasis

¶47

Signature Not Verified

¶48

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 14-Aug-2024 17:47:41

¶49

Page 7 of 7

Jagadish Misra v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jagadish Misra v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tirthabasi Dora Vs State

Dinabandhu Ray Vs State

Akash Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Tapan Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Gopinath Naik Vs State of Odisha

Rahul Panda @ Rahul Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha