IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 78 of 2026 1. Binapani Mohanta 2. Gangadhar Mohanta …. Petitioners Mr. Arjuna Charana Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa (Vigilance) …. Opp. Party Mr. Sangram Das, Standing Counsel (for Vigilance) CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER Order No. 18.03.2026 (Through hybrid Mode) 02. 1. This CRLREV has been filed with the following prayer:- “Therefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to Admit this Criminal Revision petition, call for the records in VGR No. 26 of 2013 arising out of T.C No. 13/2016 from the court of the learned Special Judge, (Vig) Baripada, and after hearing from the parties, this Hon'ble Court may pass an order by directing to the learned court below / Learned Trial Court for fresh consideration of the recalling petition of the petitioners for recalling the PW - Nos. 14, 19 & 21) by setting aside the rejection order dtd.03.01.2026 for the interest of justice and equity. This Hon'ble court further be pleased to direct any other direction(s) or pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper as this case in question. And for this act of kindness, the petitioners, are in duty bound shall ever pray.” 2. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam : (2009) 5 SCC 153, the orders of learned trial Court deciding an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for production of documents and application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the witnesses, are interlocutory in nature, revision under Section 397(2), was not maintainable. 3. On 16.03.2026, Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance had pointed out for which the matter had been adjourned to today to enable Mr. Arjuna Charana Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioners to address this Court on the question of maintainability. 4. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioners fairly submits that as per the decision of the Supreme Court, the revision would not be maintainable. So he wants to withdraw this CRLREV in order to file an application under Section 528 of BNSS. 5. Considering the said submission, the CRLREV is disposed of as withdrawn. 6. The Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order by filing an appropriate application. 7. Office is directed to return the certified copy of the orders dated 05.12.2025 and 03.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Baripada (Annexures-3 and 4 respectively) to the learned counsel for the Petitioners if they are substituted by attested photostat copies. 8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Sukanta Designation: Senior Stenographer