Orissa High Court
Baripada Town P.S. Case No. 55/2024) vs State Of Orissa ... Opposite Party on 13 August, 2024
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.302 of 2024
(An application U/S. 397 read with Section 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated
18.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-Presiding Officer, Special Court under POCSO Act,
Baripada in C.T. Case No. 07 of 2024 arising out of
Baripada Town P.S. Case No. 55/2024)
Snehaban Limma ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Orissa ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Dr. S. Ranjit, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING :16.07.2024
DATE OF ORDER :13.08.2024
Order No.
04.
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This criminal revision U/S. 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short, "the Code") is directed against the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Special Court under POCSO Act, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in C.T. Case No. 07 of 2024.
CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 1 of 24
2. By the aforesaid order, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of compulsive bail U/S. 167(2) of the Code has been turned down.
3. The short facts in this case are on 05.02.2024 the Inspector-in-Charge, Baripada town Police Station registered a criminal case vide P.S. Case No. 55 of 2024 against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 342/376(2)(f)/506 of Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 ( in short, "POCSO Act") on the FIR of the father of the victim girl and the petitioner was accordingly arrested on 11.02.2024 and forwarded to the Court on the next day on 12.02.2024. Accordingly, the learned trial Court authorized the detention of the petitioner in custody since 12.02.2024 by remanding him to jail, but on 05.04.2024, the IO filed a charge sheet named and styled as "Preliminary" vide Baripada Town PS CS No. 124 dated 04.04.2024 against the petitioner for offences punishable U/Ss. 376(2)(f)/342/506 of IPC read with CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 2 of 24 Sec. 6 POCSO Act and Sec. 3(1)(r)(w)(i)(ii)/3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act.
3.1. On receipt of such charge sheet, the learned Special Court under POCSO Act took cognizance of above offences. After taking cognizance of aforesaid offences, the learned trial Court posted the case to 12.04.2024 and thereafter, to some other dates awaiting for final charge sheet. On 18.06.2024, the petitioner, however, filed a petition U/S. 167(2) of the Code for grant of default bail for non-submission of charge sheet within the stipulated period, which came to be rejected by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court under POCSO Act, Baripada on the very same day on the ground that the IO has already submitted charge sheet within the stipulated time on 05.04.2024 and the Court has already taken cognizance of offences on the same day. Hence, this revision is by the petitioner.
4. Assailing the impugned order, Dr.S.Ranjit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by taking this Court through the impugned order has submitted that although preliminary charge sheet was submitted CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 3 of 24 on 59th day of remand of the petitioner, but final charge sheet having not been submitted within the stipulated time of 120 days in this case, the petitioner is entitled to default bail, however, ignoring such right of the petitioner, the learned trial Court has erroneously held that the petitioner is not entitled to default bail since the IO has already submitted charge sheet on 05.04.2024. It is further submitted that undisputedly the IO has kept the investigation open U/S. 173(8) of the Code, but notwithstanding to such fact, the learned trial Court has held that the IO has submitted charge sheet against the accused-petitioner depriving him of his right to default bail. Dr.Ranjit has further submitted that there is no provision available in the Code for submitting preliminary charge sheet, which was filed in this case not only without certain documents, but also without the supervision note of the higher official in terms of Rule 48(e) of the Orissa Police Rules and, therefore, the preliminary charge sheet as filed in this case is not a charge sheet, which is yet to be filed and thereby, the petitioner is entitled to default bail. It is also submitted CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 4 of 24 by Dr.Ranjit that the charge sheet as filed by the IO in this case discloses that since the stipulated period of submission of charge sheet was going to be completed on 04.04.2024, the IO submitted preliminary charge sheet on that day by keeping the investigation open U/S. 173(8) of Code and, therefore, the very use of aforesaid sentence in the preliminary charge sheet itself denotes that the investigation was yet to be completed till the expiry of the stipulated period of 120 days as the final charge sheet has not yet been submitted in this case. In order to buttress his submission, Dr.Ranjit has relied upon the decision in the case of Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra and another; (2013) 3 SCC 77. On the aforesaid submission, Dr. Ranjit, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order and to direct release of the petitioner on default bail.
5. On the other hand, Mr.S.S.Pradhan, learned AGA by relying upon paragraph-23 of the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan and CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 5 of 24 another; (2024) 3 SCC 734 has submitted that from the material produced along with the charge-sheet, once the Court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance thereof for the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not and the pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused person or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of charge-sheet would neither vitiate the charge-sheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground of submission of an incomplete charge-sheet or that the charge-sheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) Code. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr.S.S.Pradhan, learned AGA has prayed to dismiss the criminal revision.
6. After having duly considered the rival submissions, the core question that calls for consideration in this revision is whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail/compulsive bail in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code on the ground of not filing CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 6 of 24 final charge-sheet within the stipulated period of 120 days, notwithstanding to the filing of preliminary charge- sheet on 59th day by keeping the investigation open under Section 173(8) of the Code? In proceeding further to examine the aforesaid question, this Court reminds that default/compulsive bail is not only a mere statutory right, but also is a fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The word compulsive bail itself denotes that it is compulsorily enforceable for non-filing of challan/charge-sheet/police report as prescribed under Section 173(2) of the Code, but it does not survive or remain enforceable once challan/police report is filed against the accused in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. In the present context, the undisputed facts suggest that preliminary charge- sheet was filed within the stipulated time by keeping the investigation open under Section 173(8) of the Code. A copy of such charge-sheet made available to the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner itself reveals the following in its last paragraph:-
CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 7 of 24
"The investigation of this case is under progress. The stipulated period for submission of CS is going to be completed on 04.04.2024, but JER, CDR & SDR, certificate U/S-65(B) IE Act, and S. Note of SO yet to be received. Hence, submit Preliminary CS Baripada Town PS CS No.- 124 dt 04.04.2024 U/S-376(2)(f)/342/506 of IPC/6 POCSO Act. RWS 3(1)(r)(w)(i)(ii)/3(2)(v) SC & ST (POA) Act. against the accused Snehaban Lima (47), S/o-Late Bipin Chandra Lima of Dhanakouda, PS-Sambalpur Sadar, Dist- Sambalpur, A/p-Mission Compound, W. No-04, PS-Baripada Town, Dist.-Mayurbhanj keeping the investigation open U/S.173(8) Cr.P.C."
7. Admittedly charge-sheet, muchless the preliminary charge-sheet neither finds place nor has been defined in terms of the statutory provisions of the Code which only recognizes the filing of report by the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station under Section 173(2) of the Code on completion of investigation. It is, however, true that the words "charge sheet" and "preliminary charge sheet" have only been described in the Orissa Police Rules, which does not prescribe any period for filing the same before the Court. However, Section 167(2) of the Code, which provides for scheme of default bail, does not refer to charge-sheet, rather it only says about authorization of detention of the accused in custody for a maximum/stipulated period of CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 8 of 24 90/60 days pending completion of investigation and the right of accused for bail on expiry of said period of 90/60 days. The aforesaid stipulated period of 90 days is 120 days in the State of Orissa as per Orissa Amendment. A conjoint reading of Section 167 and 173 of the Code makes it apparently clear about the right crystallized in favour of the accused, once the investigation is not completed within the stipulated period of 60/120 days in Orissa.
8. The moot question involved in this case is whether the preliminary charge-sheet filed in this case by keeping investigation open for want of documents such as JER/CDR/SDR/certificate U/S65(B) IE Act and S. Note of SO would be considered as incomplete/defective charge-sheet, so as to make the petitioner entitle for default bail, but there is no reference to charge-sheet either in Section 167(2) or in 173(2) of the Code, however, the completion of investigation within the stipulated period is the sole determinative factor for deciding the right of the accused for default bail. For CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 9 of 24 clarity, the provision of Section 173(2)(i) of Code is extracted hereunder:-
"173(2)(i) As soon as it is completed, the officer- in-charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.
(h) Whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under [Sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
9. It is apparently clear that the basic framework on which release of the accused on default bail has been provided in proviso(a) to Sub-section 2 of Section 167 of the Code, which is to be guided by filing of Police report U/s. 173(2)(i) of the Code read with Section 173(5) of the Code. Section 173(2) of the Code mandates that once investigation is completed, the Officer in-charge of CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 10 of 24 a Police Station shall forward to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offences on a Police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State indicating/stating the factors that has been described therein. Section 173(5) of the Code, however, mandates that when such report is in respect of a case, to which Section 170 of the Code applies, the Police Official shall forward to the Magistrate along with report, all documents or relevant extract thereof, on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation and the statements recorded U/S. 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. The scheme of further investigation has been elaborated U/S. 173(8) of the Code which deals with the provision for further investigation. It is, therefore, very clear that further investigation in a case is well within the scheme of the Code.
10. The claim of the petitioner in this case is that the I.O. having filed a preliminary charge sheet without filing the final charge sheet would render such report CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 11 of 24 styled as "preliminary charge sheet" as incomplete and defective one, but it is never disputed in this case that preliminary charge sheet was filed on 59th day and cognizance of offence was taken thereon on the same day. True it is that the issue of default bail can be decided on the answer to the question of completion on investigation and filing of a Police report U/S. 173(2) of the Code within the stipulated period, since proviso(a) to Sub-section 2 of Section 167 of the Code governs the provision for default bail, but Sec. 167 of the Code prescribes the procedure when investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours, however, Section 167(2) of the Code does not prescribe for grant of default bail merely because the Investigating Officer has only filed preliminary charge sheet which cannot in all situations be understood as not a "charge sheet/police report"
within the meaning Sec. 173(2) of the Code which is the guiding factor to decide whether the investigation is complete or not, within the stipulated period for grant of default bail and if a report U/s. 173(2) of the Code is not filed within the statutory period, the accused then in CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 12 of 24 custody is entitled to default bail as of right, however, merely because preliminary charge sheet has been filed, it would not ipso facto automatically entitle the accused to default bail, unless the preliminary charge sheet filed against the accused person is not a police report within the meaning of Section 173(2) of the Code.
In such situation, the accused is required to further establish that the investigation is incomplete and the police report styled as "preliminary charge sheet" is not a report U/s. 173 of the Code. It cannot be, however, considered that the investigation kept open for further investigation would automatically entitle the accused to default bail inasmuch as the statutory scheme does not lead to a presumption that keeping the matter open for further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code qua the other accused persons or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of charge sheet, would render the report filed U/s. 173(2) of the Code as incomplete or defective one. In this regard, this Court is alive with the principles/ratio laid down in K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India; (1991) 3 CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 13 of 24 SCC 655 wherein a Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in paragraph 76 while explaining the scope of Section 173(2) of the Code has held as under:-
"76. The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of police officer under Section 173(2) of the Code. The Section 173(2) provides that on completion of the investigation the police officer investigating into a cognizable offence shall submit a report. The report must be in the form prescribed by the State Government and stating therein (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he had been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; and (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. As observed by this Court in Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar;1980 3 SCC 152 that the statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. This report is an intimation to the magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable offence the Investigating Officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. In fact, the report under Section 173(2) purports to be an opinion of the Investigating Officer that as far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the accused by the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5). Nothing more need be stated in the report of the Investigating Officer. It is also not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated. The details of the offence CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 14 of 24 are required to be proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later stage i.e. in the course of the trial of the case by adducing acceptable evidence."
11. This Court considers it profitable to refer to the decision in Kapil Wadhawan (supra) wherein in a similar situation, the Apex Court has held as under:-
23. The benefit of proviso appended to sub-
section (2) of Section 167 of the Code would be available to the offender only when a charge- sheet is not filed and the investigation is kept pending against him. Once however, a charge- sheet is filed, the said right ceases. It may be noted that the right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in terms of sub- section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a charge-sheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof against the accused. Though ordinarily all documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the charge- sheet, nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents are not filed along with the charge- sheet, that reason by itself would not invalidate or vitiate the charge-sheet. It is also well settled that the court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. Once from the material produced along with the charge-sheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of charge-sheet would neither vitiate the charge-sheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the charge-sheet was an CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 15 of 24 incomplete charge- sheet or that the charge-sheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) Code.
12. In Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI.; (2007) 8 SCC 770, the Apex Court while discussing the scope of Section 167(2) vis-à-vis Section 173(8) of the Code has held the followings in paragraphs-19, 20 and 22:-
"19. A charge-sheet is a final report within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code. It is filed so as to enable the court concerned to apply its mind as to whether cognizance of the offence thereupon should be taken or not. The report is ordinarily filed in the form prescribed therefor. One of the requirements for submission of a police report is whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom. In some cases, the accused having not been arrested, the investigation against him may not be complete. There may not be sufficient material for arriving at a decision that the absconding accused is also a person by whom the offence appears to have been committed. If the investigating officer finds sufficient evidence even against such an accused who had been absconding, in our opinion, law does not require that filing of the charge- sheet must await the arrest of the accused.
20. Indisputably, the power of the investigating officer to make a prayer for making further investigation in terms of sub- section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a charge-sheet under sub- section (2) thereof has been filed. A further investigation is permissible even if order of CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 16 of 24 cognizance of offence has been taken by the Magistrate.
22. It is true that ordinarily all documents accompany the charge- sheet. But, in this case, some documents could not be filed which were not in the possession of CBI and the same were with GEQD. As indicated hereinbefore, the said documents are said to have been filed on 20-1-2006 whereas the appellant was arrested on 12-2-2006. The appellant does not contend that he has been prejudiced by not filing of such documents with the charge-sheet. No such plea in fact had been taken. Even if all the documents had not been filed, by reason thereof submission of charge- sheet itself does not become vitiated in law. The charge-sheet has been acted upon as an order of cognizance had been passed on the basis thereof. The appellant has not questioned the said order taking cognizance of the offence. Validity of the said charge- sheet is also not in question."
13. Further, it is reiterated that the indefeasible right accruing to the accused is enforceable only prior to the filing of the police report U/S. 173(2) of the Code and it does not survive or remain enforceable, once such report is filed. It is, however, made clear that once report U/S. 173(2) of the Code is filed within the statutory period, the question of grant or refusal of bail has to be considered and decided only on merits and the CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 17 of 24 same is not governed by Sec. 167(2) of the Code in such situation. In support of his plea, the petitioner relies upon the decision in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain(supra), but the Apex Court therein has specifically held that once a charge sheet is filed within the stipulated time, the question of grant of default of bail or statutory bail does not arise and whether cognizance is taken or not is not material as far as Sec. 167 of the Cr.P.C is concerned. It is also held by the Apex Court therein that this scheme of Cr.P.C is such that once the investigation stage is completed, the Court proceeds to the next stage, which is the taking of cognizance and trial. In the present case, cognizance having already taken on receipt of police report U/S. 173(2) of the Code, which is of course, styled as "preliminary charge sheet", it is presumed that the investigation stage is complete qua the petitioner, but the "preliminary charge sheet" as filed on 59th day in this case which is well within the statutory period cannot be considered as not a police report/defective police report within the meaning of Sec. 173(2) of the Code merely because CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 18 of 24 some documents such as JER, CDR & SDR, certificate U/S-65(B) IE Act, and S. Note of SO are not filed with the police report so as to make the petitioner entitle to default bail. The reference to S.Note of SO as provided in Rule 48(e) of the Orissa Police Rules has to be understood in the context of the scheme of Orissa Police Rules which does not prescribe for grant of default bail for want of supervision note and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the right of the accused for default bail has been crystallized for want of supervision note merits no consideration. Hence, the right to default bail can be read into for want of supervision note within the stipulated time.
14. In this case, the undisputed fact discloses that soon after receipt of the report styled as preliminary charge sheet, the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Special Court under POCSO Act, Mayurbhanj, Baripada has taken cognizance of the offence U/ss. 376(2)(f)/342/506 IPC, r/w Section 6 POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(w)(i)(ii)/3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act and therefore, the right to default bail CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 19 of 24 having not accrued to the petitioner on the date of taking cognizance of offences on presentation of report U/S. 173(2) of the Code would not revive his right to default bail. In this regard, this Court considers it appropriate to refer to the decision in Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh and others v. State of Maharashtra; (1996) 1 SCC 722, wherein the appellants were taken into custody on 16.01.1993 and charge sheet was submitted on 30.08.1993; which was obviously beyond the statutory period U/S. 20(4)(b) of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention Act) (in short "the TADA Act") and, though the appellants therein were entitled to be released on default bail in view of the charge sheet not being filed within the statutory period prescribed U/S. 20(4)(b) of the TADA Act r/w. proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code, but they did not make an application for release on bail on the ground of default in completion of investigation within the statutory period. In such situation, the Apex Court in paragraph-11 therein has held as under:-
CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 20 of 24
"11 xx xx xx It is now settled that this right [U/S. 167(2) of the Code] cannot be exercised after the charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken, because in that event the remand of the accused concerned including one who is alleged to have committed an offence under TADA, is not U/S. 167(2) but under other provisions of the Code."
Thus, on a careful conspectus of facts of the present case and the law laid down by Apex Court in Madar Sheikh (supra), it can be well considered that the right to statutory bail becomes unenforceable after cognizance having been taken on the Police report U/S. 173(2) of the Code.
15. In the aforesaid situation and on a careful consideration of the provision governing the default bail and investigation, it appears to the Court that there is a difference between filing a charge sheet and forwarding of the documents together with the charge sheet, since the charge sheet is filed upon completion of investigation after the Investigating Officer finding sufficient evidence to prosecute the accused for offences and the documents collected by the Investigating Officer is only corroborative in nature to the accusations. CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 21 of 24 Further, Section 173(2)(i)(d) of the Code discloses that while submitting a Police report, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to state whether any offence appears to have been committed and if so, by whom and the forwarding of documents referred to in Section 173(5) of the Code along with police report U/S. 173(2) of the Code is only directory in nature, but not mandatory as held by the Apex Court in Narendra Kumar Amin v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others; (2015) 3 SCC 417. Moreover, when the further investigation as contemplated U/S. 173(8) of the Code is permissible, the Investigating Officer, if situation so calls for can conduct further investigation and thereby, no statutory Bar having been imposed for collection of further evidence in the form of additional documents which are gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation can be produced before the Court. In this situation, there being no statutory Bar for production of additional documents before the Court, mere non-filing of full set of documents with police report/charge sheet within statutory period does not CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 22 of 24 entitle the accused to default bail, unless the police report is not a complete report in terms of Sec. 173(2) of the Code.
16. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and analysis of the law laid down by the Apex Court, mere non-filing of JER/CDR/SDR/certificate U/S.65(B) Indian Evidence Act is not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the Police report filed U/S.173(2) of the Code styled as "preliminary charge sheet" is an incomplete one, since there is a provision U/S.173(8) of Code for further investigation, even after filing of the charge sheet. It is also not the law that after completion of investigation of the case and presentation of police report before the Magistrate, the Investigating Agency is precluded from collecting further evidence and producing it before the competent Court as provided U/S. 173(8) of the Code and, therefore, it may not be correct to hold that for not annexing some documents with the Police report, it cannot be considered that the investigation is pending and the Police report is defective or incomplete one. Once the Police report U/S. 173(2) of the Code CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 23 of 24 contains the details required therein and it is filed within prescribed period, it cannot be termed as incomplete charge sheet or the investigation is pending. Further, the JER/CDR/SDR/certificate U/S.65(B) Indian Evidence Act would only be the corroborative piece of evidence and thereby, the petitioner does not get the right to default bail merely because the Police report U/S. 173(2) of the Code is filed without such documents. In such situation, the petitioner's case merits no consideration and he is not entitled to default bail for non-filing of certain documents which has been indicated above, since the Police report U/S. 173(2) of the Code has admittedly been filed on 59th day, which is of course named as "preliminary charge sheet".
17. In the result, the present criminal revision sans any merit, stands dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs.
(G. Satapathy) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Judge Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Aug-2024 18:04:39 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th day of August, 2024/Kishore CRLREV No.302 of 2024 Page 24 of 24