CRLREV No.885 of IN THE HIG Kamalakanta D Another State of Odisha THE HON’BLE Chittaranjan Dash, 1. By means aside the impugne Special Judge (Vi arising out of Ba annexed under An Petitioners for thei 2. The backg Vigilance, Balaso College, Basudevp concurrence for t Economics for the records, Miss Sat Rajendra Rout we AFR of 2025 E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTT CRLREV No. 885 of 2025 a Dangua & …. P Mr. A. Tripathy -versus- ha (Vig.) …. Oppo Mr. Sangram For Vigilance De CORAM: BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN Date of Judgment: 10.12.2025 ash, J. means of this application, the Petitioners pugned order dated 04.09.2025, passed by ge (Vigilance), Balasore, in S.T. Case No. of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 58 o der Annexure-1, and to allow the petition f or their discharge. background facts of the case are that the I alasore, filed a written report stating tha sudevpur, Bhadrak, received provisional aff for the subjects of English, Political Sc or the academic year 1987-88. According to ss Satirani Mohanty, Bijnandarshani Moha out were appointed as lecturers in Englis CUTTACK Petitioners athy, Advocate pposite Party gram Das, S.C. nce Department JAN DASH ners seek to set ed by the learned e No. 4 of 2025, . 58 of 2015, as ition filed by the t the Inspector of ng that Mandari al affiliation and cal Science, and ing to the college Mohapatra, and English, Political CRLREV No.885 of Science, and Eco connection, the c applications from was conducted at of the Governing expert, whose iden due to the product Miss Satirani Mo Kumar Rout are interviewing comm as Lecturer in En Political Science, a issuing appointme having joined on Governing Body p Satirani Mohanty Mohapatra on 04.0 better opportuniti Madhabananda M 03.08.1991 (Miss (Sri Rout), followi Thereafter, posts: on 05.04.19 Rajendra Kumar R Science, resulting Sri Kamalakanta D advertisement for t the personal files of 2025 d Economics, respectively, on 28.07.198 the college issued an advertisement an from three candidates. On 18.07.1988, an ted at Mandari College in the presence of th rning Body, Sri Dolagovinda Bindhani, an se identity could not be ascertained during roduction of fabricated documents. The app ni Mohanty, Bijnandarshani Mohapatra, an are shown to have attended the inter committee purportedly selected Miss Satiran in English, Bijnandarshani Mohapatra as ence, and Sri Rajendra Rout as Lecturer in E intment letters on 20.07.1988, and they are ed on 28.07.1988. Subsequently, on 01.09 ody passed a resolution regarding their joi ohanty resigned on 05.09.1991, Bijn n 04.07.1991, and Rajendra Rout on 10.03.1 rtunities. Their resignations were accept da Mallik, Secretary, and they were r (Miss Mohanty and Ms. Mohapatra) and ollowing acceptance by the Governing Body eafter, fresh interviews were conducted for .04.1990 for Economics, resulting in the sele mar Rout; and on 25.07.1991 for English a ulting in the selection of Sri Sushanta Moh anta Dangua, respectively. However, no rec nt for these posts was available in the college l files of the concerned lecturers. The interv 07.1988. In this nt and received 88, an interview e of the President ni, and a subject uring the enquiry he applicants i.e. ra, and Rajendra interview. The Satirani Mohanty ra as Lecturer in rer in Economics, y are recorded as 01.09.1988, the eir joining. Miss Bijnandarshani 0.03.1990, citing accepted by Sri ere relieved on ) and 09.04.1990 Body. ed for the vacant e selection of Sri lish and Political a Mohapatra and no record of any college records or interviews were CRLREV No.885 of conducted by S Governing Body, experts. Sri Kam 06.04.1990, Sri Rabindra Kumar M posts in place of t Miss Satirani Mo Charampa Mahavi Mohapatra as Lec College on 21.04 Economics at Pati and they continued This was confirme such, the postin Bijnandarshani Mo with effect from 03.08.1991, and 2 be false. The Pet joining letters, r acquaintance regis The Petitio Science, and Eco 28.07.1988 until Sushanta Mohapat No. 4711 dated 1 Bhubaneswar, rece College, Sri Madh GIA to fifteen tea of 2025 by Sri Dolagovinda Bindhani, Preside ody, Sri Krupasindhu Mohanty, Principal, Kamalakanta Dangua received his appoi Sri Sushanta Mohapatra on 09.04.1990 umar Muduli on 30.08.1991, joining in their ce of the earlier appointees. The enquiry re ni Mohanty had joined as Lecturer in ahavidyalaya, Bhadrak, on 26.04.1987; Bijn as Lecturer in Political Science at Jaleswar 21.04.1982; and Sri Rajendra Rout as L at Patitapaban Mahavidyalaya, Sainkul, on 2 ntinued in those institutions during the relev nfirmed by the Principals of the respective c postings and joining of Miss Satirani ani Mohapatra, and Rajendra Rout at Mand from 28.07.1988 to 03.08.1991, 28.0 and 28.07.1988 to 01.04.1990, respectively he Petitioners also disowned their signatu ters, resignation letters, attendance regi e registers. Petitioners submit that no lecturers in Englis d Economics were posted at Mandari Co until the joining of Sri Kamalakanta D ohapatra, and Sri Rabindra Kumar Muduli. ated 14.10.1996, the Director of Higher r, received a proposal from the Secretary Madhabananda Mallik, recommending the a en teaching and non-teaching staff. Howeve resident of the cipal, and subject appointment on 4.1990, and Sri n their respective uiry revealed that r in English at 7; Bijnandarshani leswar Women’s t as Lecturer in l, on 28.05.1989, e relevant period. ctive colleges. As atirani Mohanty, Mandari College , 28.07.1988 to ctively, appear to ignatures on the registers, and English, Political ari College from nta Dangua, Sri uduli. Vide letter igher Education, etary of Mandari g the allotment of owever, officials CRLREV No.885 of of the Directorate Sri Rama Krushna properly scrutinis documents in fav government loss o Based on No. 58 of 2015 investigation, the present Petitioners of the Prevention o of the IPC. After subm an application befo Section 239 of Cr. the learned court v prayer and rejecte Petitioners. Being trial court, the Peti 3. Mr. Tripat course of hearing, how Miss Satira Rajendra Rout ent in English, Lect Economics, respec By the time the Pe the alleged joining maintained. It wa of 2025 torate of Higher Education, Sri Prakash Kum rushna Panda, and Sri Pradipta Kishore Bhan se the documents and erroneously accep in favour of the ineligible candidates, res loss of approximately Rs. 90,00,000/-. d on these allegations, Balasore Vigilance 2015 was registered, and upon com , the police submitted a charge-sheet a tioners under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1) ntion of Corruption Act, and Sections 468, 4 r submission of the Charge-Sheet, the Petitio on before the learned trial court under Sectio of Cr.P.C. praying to discharge the Petition court vide order dated 04.09.2025 declined t rejected the submission of the learned coun Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of e Petitioner moved herein. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petition aring, submitted that the Petitioners are not Satirani Mohanty, Bijnandarshani Moha ut entered the service of Mandari College Lecturer in Political Science, and L respectively, prior to the Petitioners joining the Petitioners were appointed, the records joining of the aforesaid three persons had al It was further submitted that the said p h Kumar Mishra, e Bhanja failed to y accepted forged s, resulting in a ilance P.S. Case completion of heet against the 13(1)(c) and (d) 468, 471, and 34 Petitioner moved Section 227 r/w. titioners, whereas lined to allow the d counsel for the er of the learned etitioners, in the re not aware as to Mohapatra, and llege as Lecturer nd Lecturer in ining their posts. cords concerning had already been said persons had CRLREV No.885 of disowned their sig their respective po mentioned posts f Petitioners is lega Petitioners. The Pe along with othe manufacturing or and misappropriate that the Petitione advertisement and and have continue They had no know irregularities and college prior to the of the ingredients made out; the cha suspicion and con test of law and des 4. Mr. Sangra on the other hand, the learned couns alleged joining Mohapatra, and R records, notwithst employed elsewhe having entered ser been advertised i records showing of 2025 eir signatures on the joining letters, had res tive posts, and, therefore, any continuity of osts from 28.07.1988 until the date of joi s legally unsustainable and cannot be attrib The Petitioners contended that the college m other officials, might have been in ng or falsifying documents to secure Gov opriate public funds. Learned counsel furthe titioners joined their respective posts purs nt and interview held on 25.07.1991 and 0 ntinued in their posts lawfully until their o knowledge of the prior appointments or s and had no involvement in the managem r to their appointment. According to Mr. Trip ients of the offences alleged against the Pet he charge-sheet was submitted on the bas d conjecture, and therefore, it does not wi nd deserves to be quashed. Sangram Das, learned counsel for the State ( hand, vehemently opposed the contentions a counsel for the Petitioners. He submitte ning of Miss Satirani Mohanty, Bijn and Rajendra Rout is apparent on the f twithstanding that, at the relevant time, lsewhere. He further contended that the ed service at a later stage, were aware that th ised initially, and by putting their signatu wing the posts to have continued prio ad resigned from ity of the above- of joining of the attributed to the ege management, en involved in Government aid further submitted s pursuant to an and 03.08.1991, their retirement. ts or the alleged nagement of the r. Tripathy, none he Petitioners are he basis of mere not withstand the State (Vigilance), tions advanced by bmitted that the Bijnandarshani the face of the time, they were t the Petitioners, that the posts had signatures in the d prior to their CRLREV No.885 of engagement, they eligibility for gra advantage therefro 5. The Hon’ Dilipsinh Kishors 1294, has held as f “11. The de at the stage expression Cr.P.C. is t if any, prod give any rig the stage of accused is t investigatin 12. The pri charge is th at this stag need not b earlier deci Nath Thap Mohan La of evaluati framing of facie case. charge, the the existen offence all probative v whether the conviction 13. The po Section 397 to call for a the purpos regularities The object or an error of 2025 , they allegedly facilitated the college in or grant-in-aid benefits, thereby purportedl erefrom. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of G horsinh Rao, reported in 2023 SCC O ld as follows:- The defence of the accused is not to be looke stage when the accused seeks to be discharge ssion “the record of the case” used in Sectio .C. is to be understood as the documents and a y, produced by the prosecution. The Code do any right to the accused to produce any docum tage of framing of the charge. The submission sed is to be confined to the material produced tigating agency. he primary consideration at the stage of fram e is the test of existence of a prima-facie cas is stage, the probative value of materials on not be gone into. This Court by referring r decisions in the State of Maharashtra Vs hapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of M n Lal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the aluation to be made by the court at the st ing of the charge is to test the existence of case. It is also held at the stage of fram e, the court has to form a presumptive opin existence of factual ingredients constitutin ce alleged and it is not expected to go dee ative value of the material on record and to her the material on record would certainly l iction at the conclusion of trial. The power and jurisdiction of Higher Court on 397 Cr.P.C. which vests the court with the ll for and examine records of an inferior cour urposes of satisfying itself as to the legali arities of any proceeding or order made in a object of this provision is to set right a patent error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity lege in claiming portedly deriving of Gujarat vs. CC OnLine SC looked into charged. The Section 227 and articles, ode does not document at ission of the duced by the f framing of cie case, and ls on record erring to its a Vs. Som of MP Vs. ld the nature the stage of ce of prima- framing of e opinion to stituting the go deep into nd to check ainly lead to Court under ith the power r court is for legality and de in a case. patent defect ersity which CRLREV No.885 of has crept i refer to the Ramesh C Section 39 explained a “12. Se power inferior to the l order m to set r or law. may no orders, careful with law this Co can be are gro the pro on no judicial pervers merely determi 13. Ano jurisdic and can the inbu an inte keep i jurisdic Where whethe accorda reluctan jurisdic the cate a much CrPC.” 14. This C down prin of 2025 rept in such proceedings. It would be appo to the judgment of this court in Amit Kapo h Chandra (2012) 9 SCC 460 where sco on 397 has been considered and suc ined as under: 12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court w ower to call for and examine the records nferior court for the purposes of satisfying it o the legality and regularity of any proceedi rder made in a case. The object of this provi o set right a patent defect or an error of jurisd r law. There has to be a well-founded error ay not be appropriate for the court to scrutin rders, which upon the face of it bears a to areful consideration and appear to be in acco ith law. If one looks into the various judgme his Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisd an be invoked where the decisions under cha re grossly erroneous, there is no complianc he provisions of law, the finding recorded is n no evidence, material evidence is igno udicial discretion is exercised arbitrari erversely. These are not exhaustive classes, b erely indicative. Each case would have etermined on its own merits. 3. Another well-accepted norm is that the rev urisdiction of the higher court is a very limite nd cannot be exercised in a routine manner. O he inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be a n interim or interlocutory order. The Court eep in mind that the exercise of rev urisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex here the Court is dealing with the question hether the charge has been framed properly ccordance with law in a given case, it m eluctant to interfere in exercise of its rev urisdiction unless the case substantially falls he categories aforestated. Even framing of ch much-advanced stage in the proceedings und rPC.” his Court in the aforesaid judgement has als principles to be considered for exerci apposite to apoor Vs. ere scope of succinctly ourt with the cords of an ying itself as oceedings or provision is f jurisdiction error and it scrutinise the s a token of n accordance judgments of l jurisdiction er challenge pliance with ded is based ignored or bitrarily or sses, but are have to be he revisional limited one nner. One of ot be against Court has to f revisional tice ex facie. uestion as to perly and in , it may be ts revisional falls within of charge is gs under the has also laid exercise of CRLREV No.885 of jurisdiction of prayer f 228 Cr.P.C “27. Ha these tw of the distinct the pri should only di with pr objectiv we are conside particul in exer Section be: 27.1. T Court u power, exercise quashin charge should circums cases. 27.2. T the unc record therewi the alle improb such a a crimi may int 27.3. Th meticul conside or not a of charg of 2025 iction under Section 397 particularly in the c ayer for quashing of charge framed under S r.P.C. is sought for as under: 27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction hese two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Sectio f the Code and the fine line of jurisdi istinction, now it will be appropriate for us to he principles with reference to which the hould exercise such jurisdiction. However, it nly difficult but is inherently impossible to ith precision such principles. At best and bjective analysis of various judgments of this e are able to cull out some of the principles onsidered for proper exercise of jurisd articularly, with regard to quashing of charge n exercise of jurisdiction under Section 3 ection 482 of the Code or together, as the cas 7.1. Though there are no limits of the powers ourt under Section 482 of the Code but the mo ower, the more due care and caution is xercised in invoking these powers. The pow uashing criminal proceedings, particularly harge framed in terms of Section 228 of the hould be exercised very sparingly and ircumspection and that too in the rarest o ases. 7.2. The Court should apply the test as to w uncontroverted allegations as made fro ecord of the case and the documents sub herewith prima facie establish the offence or he allegations are so patently absurd and inhe mprobable that no prudent person can ever uch a conclusion and where the basic ingredie criminal offence are not satisfied then the ay interfere. 7.3. The High Court should not unduly interfe eticulous examination of the evidence is need onsidering whether the case would end in conv r not at the stage of framing of charge or qu f charge. Page 8 of 10 n the context nder Section diction under Section 482 jurisdictional r us to enlist h the courts ver, it is not ible to state st and upon of this Court, nciples to be jurisdiction, charge either tion 397 or the case may owers of the the more the on is to be he power of cularly, the of the Code and with rest of rare s to whether e from the ts submitted ce or not. If d inherently ever reach ngredients of en the Court interfere. No is needed for in conviction or quashing CRLREV No.885 of 27.9. A have to evidenc whethe which t concern whole w so, is i injustic 27.13. rule of even b inclined than its expecte admissi records 15. The rev and start inconsisten legally per cognizant o application 6. In the ins Tripathy, learned matters of defence argue during the co Kishorsinh Rao of the trial court evidence. It is con suffers from any il 7. It is evid supported by docu the handwriting handwriting of the of 2025 7.9. Another very significant caution that the ave to observe is that it cannot examine the vidence and materials on record to dete hether there is sufficient material on the ba hich the case would end in a conviction; the c oncerned primarily with the allegations take hole whether they will constitute an offence o, is it an abuse of the process of court lead njustice. 7.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception ule of continuous prosecution. Where the offe ven broadly satisfied, the Court should be nclined to permit continuation of prosecution han its quashing at that initial stage. The Court xpected to marshal the records with a view to dmissibility and reliability of the docume ecords but is an opinion formed prima facie.” he revisional court cannot sit as an appellate start appreciating the evidence by findin sistency in the statement of witnesses and it ly permissible. The High Courts ought izant of the fact that trial court was dealing w cation for discharge.” he instant case, the submissions advance arned counsel for the Petitioners, primarily efence, which the Petitioners are entitled t the course of the trial. As rightly observed i ao (Supra), a revisional court is not to sit i court or act as an appellate forum to re is confined to examining whether the impu any illegality, irregularity, or perversity. evident from the record that the alleg y documentary evidence, including the clea riting expert, which links the fingerp of the Petitioners to the entries allegedly m at the courts ne the facts, o determine the basis of ; the court is s taken as a fence and, if rt leading to eption to the he offence is ld be more cution rather urt is not iew to decide ocuments or acie.” pellate court finding out and it is not ught to be ling with an dvanced by Mr. marily pertain to itled to raise and rved in Dilipsinh to sit in the place to re-appreciate impugned order legations are e clear report of fingerprints and edly made in the CRLREV No.885 of attendance and ac suggest the possib irregularities. 8. In view o declined to allow allegations, cannot order satisfies the that the ingredien Accordingly, no in 04.09.2025, passe Balasore, in S.T. stands dismissed. Bijay of 2025 nd acquaintance registers. These prima fac possible involvement of the Petitioners in iew of the foregoing, the impugned or allow the Petitioners’ prayer for discharg cannot be found to be erroneous or unsusta es the test of law, and the materials on reco redients of the offences are prima facie e , no interference is warranted in impugned passed by the learned Special Judge ( S.T. Case No. 4 of 2025. As a result, the ssed. (Chittaranjan Das Judge ma facie findings ers in the alleged ed order, which scharge from the nsustainable. The n record indicate facie established. gned order dated dge (Vigilance), lt, the CRLREV Dash)