IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 1016 of 2026 Binapani Mohanta & Anr. ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Arjun Charan Behera, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha (VIG) ……. Opposite Party (s) Mr. N. Moharana, Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 08.04.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioners, in this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., have challenged the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Baripada in VGR No.26 of 2013 (T.C. No.1382016) rejecting their application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Heard. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the advocate engaged on behalf of the Petitioners before the court below has failed to cross examine the P.W. Nos.14, 19 and 21 at the time of adducing their evidence in chief. He further submits that those Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Apr-2026 11:22:04 Signature Not Verified 2 witnesses are the most important witnesses who can explain the income, expenditure and assets of the accused persons. If those witnesses are not cross-examined, the Petitioners will be highly prejudiced. He further submits that the learned trial court has declined those witnesses. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the Petitioners had filed the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling the aforesaid witnesses. However, the learned trial court rejected the said application. Hence, the Petitioners are constrained to approach this Court. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department submits that the P.Ws.14, 19 and 21 were examined in presence of the learned defence counsel who had ample opportunity to cross- examine them. But, the learned defence counsel deliberately did not cross-examine the said witnesses for which the trial court had declined the cross-examination of P.W.14,19 and 21. He further submits that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioners. The learned trial court in the order dated 5.12.2025 has observed as follows: “On perusal of the case record, it is seen that P.W.14 has been examined on 13.01.2020 and the Court has declined the the cross-examination of the said witness on the day. In the meantime seven more witnesses have already been examined, cross-examined and discharged. It can not be said that no due opportunity has been given to the learned defence counsel to cross-examine P.W.14. The petition does not reveal the specific reason for not cross-examining the aforesaid witness. The learned defence counsel Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Apr-2026 11:22:04 Signature Not Verified 3 was actively participated in the trial and he cannot plead unavoidable circumstances. P.W.14 was examined on 13.01.2020 and the present petition has been filed after lapse of more than five years which shows the delaytary tactic of the defence. This is a case of the year 2013 and now the case stands posted for recording the statements of the accused persons after closer of the case of the prosecution. The petition seems to have been filed at a very belated stage and that too without having any substance. Having regards to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly it stands rejected. Put up on 06.12.2025 for recording of statements of accused persons U/s-313, Cr.P.C/ U/s-351, BNSS. The accused persons are directed to remain present in persons on the date fixed.” 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department further submits that the learned trial court has also observed as follows in its order dated 03.01.2026: “On further perusal it is found that on 25.11.2025 the witness is present through V.C. Learned defence counsel is also present but did not choose to further cross-examine the witness. Hence, further cross-examination of the witness is declined. On further perusal it is found in the meanUme.learned Spl. P.P is declined the rest of the charge sheeted witnesses. Now case is posted for accused statement. It can not be said that no due opportunity has been given to the learned defence counsel to cross-examine P.W.19 and RW.21. The petition does not reveal the specific reason for not crossexamining the aforesaid witness. The learned defence counsel was actively participated in the trial and he cannot plead unavoidable circumstances. P.W.19 and P.W.21 were examined on 01.08.2022,13.03.2024 and 18.02.2025, 11.03.2025, 09.07.2025,19.11.2025 & 25.11.2025 respectively and the present petition has been filed at the stage of accused statement which shows the delaytory tactic of the defence. This is a case of the year 2013 and now the case stands posted for recording the statements of the accused persons after closer of the case of the prosecution. The petition seems to have been filed at a very belated stage and that too without having any substance. Having regards to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly it stands rejected. Put up on 06.01.2026 for recording of statements of accused persons U/s-313, Cr.P.C/ U/s-351, BNSS. The accused persons are directed to remain present in persons on the date fixed.” Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Apr-2026 11:22:04 Signature Not Verified 4 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, this Court is of the opinion that the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the defence in the aforesaid case does not have any merit for any consideration. In fact, learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Baripada very carefully examining each and every question has recorded his opinion as to how the same is not relevant for which application for recalling of P.Ws.14, 19 and 21 was rejected. 9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Designation: P.A.