Kishore Ku.Pani Vs State of Orissa (Vigilance) — Corruption | Orissa HC (2024)

Kishore Ku.Pani Vs State of Orissa (Vigilance) — Corruption | Orissa HC (2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLREV No. 761 of 2014

Kishore Kumar Pani …. Petitioner

Mr. S. Nayak, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha (Vigilance)

…. Opposite Party Mr. Sangram Das, ASC (Vig.)

CORAM: JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

Order No. 14.03.2024

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State.

The legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 02.05.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Balasore in T.R. Case No. 331 of 2007 has been called in question in this revision.

As seen from the Petition, it is contended that the Petitioner has been alleged in the offence U/s. 13 (2), R/w. Section. 13(1) (C) (d) of P.C. Act and Section 409/34 of IPC for having misappropriated the sum worth Rs.3,56,043/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Forty Three only) jointly while the Petitioner was working as Junior Engineer and with his colleague Junior Engineer both in Central Store. While the matter was in trial and application was mooted by the Petitioner praying to drop the further proceeding as no material was against the Petitioner.

The learned court having considered the application rejected the same. From the impugned order it reveals that the Petitioner

// 2 //

prayed for bringing the further proceeding to end simply on the basis of the averments that there is no material against the Petitioner whereas by the time the Petition was mooted, the trial had substantially progressed and there was no scope for the court to entertain the prayer of the Petitioner.

Being aggrieved by the said order declining to drop the case, the Petitioner preferred the present revision, inter alia, on the ground that the Petitioner had not taken charge of the material and as such is not liable to face the trial and the offence is not made out against him.

Mr. Das referring to the decision reported in (2023) 6 Supreme Court Cases 768 submitted that the order impugned is legal and justified.

The Apex Court in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu Vrs. R. Soundirarasu & others held as follows:-

In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan²⁹ , this Court held as under: (SCC p. 632, para. 3)

"3. ….The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the

Page 2 of 4

// 3 //

framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged."

Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with the appellate power. A Revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure.

From the ground propounded in the revision petition, it appears that the Petitioner on the basis of some discrepancy appearing in the statement of the witnesses recorded U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. and further on the ground that no case is made out against the Petitioner wanted the case to be dropped whereas, the matter having been on trial required to be adjudicated on merit.

Page 3 of 4

// 4 //

Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, since the court has given a perspicacious consideration particularly the fact that the trial has substantially progressed, the impugned order suffers no illegality and the same deserves no interferenace.

In view of the above, the CRLREV stands dismissed.

(Chittaranjan Dash)

Judge

Bijay

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Date: 15-Mar-2024 16:46:54

Page 4 of 4