Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Orissa High Court

Rama Chandra Panda vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 30 August, 2023

Author: D.Dash

Bench: D.Dash

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              CRLREV NO. 269 OF 2023
            Rama Chandra Panda                      ....          Petitioners
                                               Mr.M.K. Mohapatro, Advocate
                                          -versus-
            State of Odisha                         ....      Opposite Party.
                                                     Mr. S.K. Nayak, AGA.
                      CORAM:
                      MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
                                 ORDER

30.08.2023 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.

2. Heard.

3. Admit.

4. On consent of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State; the Revision is heard on merit.

5. The Petitioner, by filing the Revision, has called in question the legality and propriety of an order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the learned Nyadhikari-cum-J.M.F.C., Grama Nyalaya, Junagarh in G.R. Case No.96 of 2008.

By the same the application filed by the Petitioner (accused) for his discharge under section 227/239 (as nomenclature) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') has been rejected and the Trial Court has refused to discharge the Petitioner (accused) in saying that keeping in view the materials on record, there arises the presumption as to commission of the offence under sections 420/406/109/34 of the IPC by this Petitioner.

// 2 //

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner (accused) submits that this Petitioner being the father of another accused, namely, Amit Kumar Panda, who used to run the Rice Mill has been unnecessarily arraigned in the case on the allegation that he has the hand in the said alleged misappropriation by cheating and has also abated the commission of the same by other accused persons when said allegations are not supported by any such materials being so collected in course of investigation.

7. Learned counsel for the State inviting the attention of this Court to the impugned order contended that the Trial Court having extensively travelled through the materials available on record and viewing the same through the spectrum as is required for consideration of an application for discharge has rightly refused to discharge.

8. Keeping in view the submissions, I have carefully read the order impugned in this Revision.

9. The settled position of law is that while considering an application for discharge; the Court is not required to make the weighment of the materials available on record so as to ascertain as to whether a conviction is securable or not. The examination of the materials has to be only for the purpose of saying as to whether there arises the presumption as regards commission of the offence by the accused.

10. The Trial Court appears to have started the examination of the materials available on record being alive to the settled position of law which finds noted in the very order. The materials projected by the prosecution against the present Page 2 of 3 // 3 // Petitioner (accused) have been taken note of. The materials against this Petitioner (accused) are that this Petitioner (accused) used to purchase paddy at Kalampur and Bandhkane centre and the Investigating Officer has said that the original FIC of this Petitioner is not available and it has been reported that the same has been taken away by the son of this Petitioner who is also an accused. In course of investigation, it has further been ascertained that this Petitioner being capable of raising 700 quintals of paddy from his lands during Kharip season, has managed to sale 1313 quintals of paddy and it is further stated that he has managed to collect the bank cheques without physical delivery through his son (accused), who runs the Rice Mill as the Managing Partner and he directly handled the paddy procurement.

11. In view of the above materials available on record, at this stage of consideration for framing of charge for the trial to commence against this Petitioner (accused) with others, this Court finds that the impugned order does not suffer any such illegality or impropriety so as to be interfered with in exercise of revisioanl jurisdiction. Therefore, the Revision being not admitted stands dismissed.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(D. Dash), Judge.

Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC H Date: 04-Sep-2023 12:01:43 Page 3 of 3