Disposed¶7

Pitabasa Mahali v. Republic of India(Cbi)

Orissa HC12 May 2025CRLMC/1491/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of cognizance-cum-summons order dated 28.11.2024 refused; prima facie case found on chargesheet, S.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Sapan Kumar Lenka and CBI counter affidavit; offences under IPC Ss. 120-B, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and PC Act 1988 S.13(2) r/w 13(1)(a),(c),(d); postal department fraud, Gorumahisani SO Mayurbhanj and Rairangpur HO; no mini-trial at quashing stage, evaluation left to trial court; liberty reserved to argue at framing of charge or trial; CRLMC No. 1491 of 2025, Orissa High Court, Savitri Ratho, J., order dated 12.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to raise all his contentions at the time of framing of charge (if charge not already framed) or during trial; CRLMC disposed of without quashing the proceeding. ¶7

Pitabasa Mahali Vs Republic of India(Cbi) — Corruption | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to raise all his contentions at the time of framing of charge (if charge not already framed) or during trial; CRLMC disposed of without quashing the proceeding.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceeding against the petitioner arising out of the order dated 28.11.2024 taking cognizance of offences and issuing summons to the petitioner and other accused persons should be quashed. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The chargesheet, the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Sapan Kumar Lenka and the CBI counter affidavit describe the manner in which the offences were committed and the role played by the petitioner, and make out a prima facie case against him.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to conduct a mini-trial at this stage by testing the materials, such testing being the duty of the learned trial court.

¶6

Key takeaways

The CRLMC was disposed of granting the petitioner liberty to raise all his contentions at the time of framing of charge, if charge has not been framed in the meanwhile, or during trial, to be considered in accordance with law.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLMC challenging order dated 28.11.2024 taking cognizance under S. 120-B read with Ss. 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC and S. 13(2) r/w S. 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and S. 13(2) r/w S. 13(1)(a) of the P.C. Act, 1988, and issuing summons — petitioner's grounds: not posted at Gorumahisani Sub Post Office, District Mayurbhanj when offences allegedly committed; main accused (system administrator) not made an accused; no forensic examination — CBI counter affidavit describes petitioner as S.P.M. of Gorumahisani SO (26.11.2013 to 15.07.2018) and Sub Account P.A./Treasurer at Rairangpur HO (06.10.2020 to 11.03.2021) — chargesheet (Annexure-2), S. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Sapan Kumar Lenka, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, and counter affidavit disclose manner of offences and petitioner's role and make out a prima facie case — Court declined to conduct a mini-trial at this stage, testing of materials being the trial court's duty — CRLMC disposed of with liberty to raise all contentions at framing of charge or during trial (Savitri Ratho, J., Orissa High Court, 12.05.2025).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 1491 of 2025

¶2

Pitabasa Mahali ….. Petitioner Ms. J. Jena, Advocate

¶3

-versus-

¶4

C.B.I. and Others

¶5

….. Opposite Parties Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Advocate (For CBI)

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER

12.05.2025

Order No.

(Through hybrid Mode)

¶12

This CRLMC has been filed challenging the order dated 28.11.2024 taking cognizance of offences punishable under Section 120-B of IPC read with Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (a) of the P.C. Act and issuing summons to the petitioner and other accused persons.

¶13

Heard Ms. J. Jena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI.

¶14

Ms. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds for quashing the proceeding so far as the petitioner is

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

concerned including the grounds:- (i) that the petitioner was not posted in the particular branch i.e. Gorumahisani Sub Post Office, District- Mayurbhanj when the offences are alleged have been committed, (ii) the main accused who was the system administrator at that time has not been made an accused, (iii) there has been no forensic examination.

¶17

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.1 C.B.I. describing the role played by the petitioner who was S.P.M. of Gorumahisani SO for the period 26.11.2013 to 15.07.2018 and was working as Sub Account P.A./ Treasurer at Rairangpur HO from 06.10.2020 to 11.03.2021.

¶18

Perused the chargesheet which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this CRLMC, the statement of Sapan Kumar Lenka, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and produced by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. and the counter affidavit filed by the C.B.I. The manner in which the offences were committed and the role played by the petitioner is available in the documents referred above.

¶19

In view of the nature of allegations against the petitioner and the materials unearthed by the I.O. and the role of the petitioner which have been described in detail in the documents which make out a prima facie case, I am not inclined to conduct a mini-trial at this stage by testing these materials, which is the duty of the learned trial court.

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all his contention at the time of framing of charge, if charge has not been framed in the meanwhile, or during trial, which shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶22

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶23

puspa

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 17-May-2025 11:40:24

¶26

Page 3 of 3

Pitabasa Mahali v. Republic of India(Cbi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pitabasa Mahali v. Republic of India(Cbi)

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

Bichitra Nanda Mahapatra Vs Nabakishore Behera

Satyabrata Rout Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Sandhyarani Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Dhananjaya Mahakud Vs Gitanjali Mohakud

Sanjay Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Sunil@Sameer Khan@Samir Khan Vs State of Odisha