Nabin Kumar Satapathy Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶16

By filing the present application under Section 528 of BNSS, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash order dated 18.08.2025 passed in G.R. Case No.02 of 2023(V), pending before the learned ADJ-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Phulbani.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that after conclusion of the evidence from the side of the prosecution the defense evidence was opened. Accordingly, summons were issued to one Satyajit Mohanty on the basis of the information provided vide a memo from the defense side. However, erroneously the name of the

¶18

Page 1 of 3.

¶19

father of the aforesaid witness was mentioned wrongly, as a result of which, the summons could not be served on such witness. In the meantime after detecting the aforesaid mistake another memo was filed at the instance of the defense to rectify the name of the father of the above named witness, namely Satyajit Mohanty. The memo which was filed at the instance of the defense for correction of the father’s name of the above noted witness in petition dated 01.08.2025 was rejected by the learned ADJ-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Phulbani. Being aggrieved by such order or rejection dated 18.08.2025, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application.

¶20

Mr. Moharana, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department supported the order dated 18.08.2025. He further submitted that the intention of the accused Petitioner is only to prolong the trial and accordingly he has resorted to employing different tricks to delay the trial. He further submitted that it is the duty of the defense to produce their own witness in their defense before the learned trial Court. On such ground, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department submitted before this Court that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the memo of the Petitioner vide order dated 18.08.2025. Accordingly, it was argued that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further on a close scrutiny of order dated 18.08.2025, this Court is of the view that in fact a memo was filed from the defense side seeking correction of the father’s name of the witness, namely

¶22

Page 2 of 3.

¶23

Satya Mohanty, in his petition dated 01.08.2025. It appears that summons was issued to one witness, namely Satya Mohanty, S/oJugal Mohanty. However, the defense wants that the summons be issued on Satyajit Mohanty, S/o-Belarsen Mohanty, who is working as a Home Guard in Kiakata P.S. Since earlier a summon was issued by describing the father’s name erroneously, which is obviously attributable to the negligence of the defense, in order to bring an end to the dispute, this Court directs that the order dated 01.08.2025 be modified to the extent that the learned trial Court shall now issue summons in the fresh address as provided by the defense. However, since the accused Petitioner has committed the mistake, this modification shall be subject to the Petitioner depositing a cost of Rs.500/- by the Petitioner to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of Local Bar Association within fifteen days and furnishing money receipt thereof in proof of deposit. The Petitioner is directed to approach the learned trial Court within ten days from today along with a copy of today’s order. On production of a copy of today’s order the learned trial Court shall pass necessary further directions.

¶24

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLMC application stands disposed of.

¶25

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

¶26

Judge

¶27

S.K. Rout

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Page 3 of 3. Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 13-Nov-2025 10:21:16

Nabin Kumar Satapathy v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nabin Kumar Satapathy v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

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

Khandagiri Traders Vs Dilip Kumar Sahoo

Ranjubala Samal Vs State of Odisha

Rajendra Behera Vs State of Odisha

Sunita @ Santoshini Behera Vs State of Odisha

Bikash Chandra Swain Vs State of Odisha

Sushama Kujur Vs State of Odisha