Orissa High Court
Daitary Bag vs State Of Orissa on 27 November, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.158 of 1998
and
CRA No.154 of 1998
(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
CRA No.158 of 1998
Daitary Bag ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Byomokesh Sahoo, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
CRA No.154 of 1998
Kalicharan Verma ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Ms. Diptirekha Nanda, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 16.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 27.11.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. Both the Criminal Appeals are directed against the
judgment and order dated 19.06.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. 28/7 of 1994, arising out of G.R. Case No.113/94, whereby the appellants (i) Daitary Bag, then Sheristadar of the Civil Court, Sambalpur, and (ii) Kalicharan Verma, a private individual, were convicted under Sections 454/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 454 IPC and five years under Section 380 IPC, both sentences to run concurrently. The other accused persons were acquitted. Since the impugned judgment under challenge is a common judgment, both appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Mr. Byomokesh Sahoo and Ms. Diptirekha Nanda, Advocates for the appellants and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.01.1994, which happened to be a national holiday, Bhola Bag (P.W.1), the night watchman of the Page 2 of 22 Civil Court, Sambalpur, received an alarm from his wife, Lalita Bag (P.W.5) that the Malkhana door of the Sessions Court was shaking even though it was locked from the outside. Upon peeping through a broken glass pane, they noticed a person moving inside. Around the same time, the appellant Daitary Bag was seen loitering near the guest-cum-inspection room adjacent to the Malkhana. When questioned, he tried to pacify them by saying that there was a ghost inside and even attempted to persuade them not to raise an alarm.
4. On being informed, the Nazir (P.W.10), other court staff, and police officers arrived. The Malkhana was opened, and the appellant Kalicharan Verma was found hiding inside. Some gunny bags containing ganja were found moved near the door and towards the inspection room. Investigation ensued, and after completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet was submitted against the appellants and two others under Sections 454, 380, 201, and 34 IPC read with Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
5. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses and exhibited seven documents in support of its case. P.W.1 (informant) and P.W.5 (his wife) were material witnesses, who deposed about the suspicious movement inside the Malkhana and the conduct of Daitary Bag. P.W.10, the Nazir, Page 3 of 22 produced the key and opened the Malkhana in presence of police, from which appellant Kalicharan Verma was recovered. P.Ws. 10 to 12, being the Steno and other staff, corroborated the recovery process and subsequent seizure. P.Ws. 14 and 15 were the Investigating Officers.
6. The defence examined two witnesses and exhibited two documents to substantiate their plea that the appellants were falsely implicated and that the case was built solely on circumstantial evidence.
7. The appellant Daitary Bag claimed that he was innocent and that his presence near the court building on the relevant morning was official, being a staff member. He denied facilitating any entry into the Malkhana.
8. The appellant Kalicharan Verma, on the other hand, contended that he was an outsider who had gone to the market to purchase meat and then to a betel shop in front of the court premises. He claimed that an old man had called him inside the court compound, and thereafter, some unknown persons overpowered him, rendered him unconscious with a foul-smelling cloth, and locked him inside the Malkhana. This defence plea was claimed to be supported by P.W.6 (his mother), P.W.13 (a meat vendor), and D.W.1 (a betel shop owner).
Page 4 of 22
9. The learned trial Court, after carefully evaluating the evidence, held that the pleas advanced by the accused Kalicharan Verma and Daitari Bag were beyond comprehension, inconsistent and not supported by any credible material. The court found Kalicharan‟s explanation that he had entered the Court premises merely to urinate and was wrongfully confined in the malkhana is implausible, particularly when the key of the malkhana was with P.W.10. Similarly, Daitari Bag‟s defence was found to be an afterthought, as he had gone to the extent of suggesting that the court staff had themselves stolen the seized ganja. Observing that both accused had fabricated false pleas to evade responsibility, the Court concluded that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt their guilt under Sections 454, 380, and 34 IPC. Given the gravity of the offence and their breach of trust as court staff, the Court declined to extend the benefit of probation. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted for convenience of ready reference:-
"12. Both the accused persons have taken the plea which had not been substantiated by them. Accused Kalicharan even though cited D.W.1 in support of his plea, the name of D.W.1 having not been disclosed earlier, the evidence of D.W.1 appears to be after thought. Furthermore the plea taken by accused Kalicharan is quite unreasonable and fanststic. Since key of the lock of malkhana was with P.W.10, how P.W.1 would open it and what purpose would serve, if accused Kalicharan had come, to the Page 5 of 22 court premises to pass urine, would be forcibly confined in the court malkhana. This being so the plea taken by accused Kalicharan is not helpful to him. So also the plea taken by accused Daitari Bag is not at all acceptable as he has given several suggestions to several witnesses and he has also gone to the extent of giving suggestion to P.W.10 that officers of the court had committed theft of ganja from the court malkhana and with the help of the staff of the court he has been implicated in this case. This shows that accused Daitari Bag being Sheristadar of the court when was found involved in serious case, has gone to the extent of taking any plea in order to escape from the liability. The plea taken by him therefore, is not helpful at all.
From the entire evidence on record and discussion made above, I therefore, feel that prosecution has been able to prove the charge u/s 454/380/34 I.P.C. against accused Kalicharan Verma and accused Daitari Bag beyond all reasonable doubts. But so far as accused Gopal Pradhan and Sunil Mishra are concerned none of the witnesses have stated any-thing against them and as such they are found not guilty on any of the charges.
13. In the result I held accused Gopal Pradhan and Sunil Mishra not guilty u/s 20 (b) of N.D.P.S.Act and u/s 201/454/380/34 I.P.C. and acquitted them u/s 232 Cr.P.C. and set them at liberty and I hold accused Kalicharan Verma and Daitari Bag not guilty u/s 20 (b) of N.D.P.S.Act and u/s 201/34 I.P.C. and as such acquitted them u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C. and set them at liberty from these charges. But I hold both the accused persons (Daitari Bag and Kalicharan Verma) guilty for the offence u/s 454/380/34 I.P.C. and convict them there under.
14. The offences are quite a grievous in nature. Accused Daitari Bag even if was junior in service and schedule caste he was given promotion to the post of Sheristadar Page 6 of 22 superseding D.W.2. He has not only committed the offence of theft on the alleged date but also in order to do so he has managed to prepare duplicate keys of the malkhana where valuables involved in severa; cases have been preserved. At the relevant time he could take the pain of preparing a duplicate key for the purpose of theft of valuables from the court malkhana but who knows what he has done when he being Nazir of the Court Malkhana was in possession of the Mlakhana keys was dealing with the Malkhana properties. The matter is quite serious as being a Senior most ministerial staff of the Court if he would venture to commit this type of offence from the Court Malkhana in broad day light, I feel he deserves no sympathy and as such I am not inclined to release him under the provision of Probation of Offenders Act or u/s 360 Cr.P.C. So also when accused Kalicharan was caught red handed from the court malkhana he also deserves no sympathy and as such I am not inclined to release him under the provision of Probation of Offenders Act or 360 Cr.P.C."
10. Learned counsels for the appellants submitted that the entire prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, and no direct evidence of breaking or theft has been adduced. It is contended that none of the witnesses saw either of the appellants breaking open or entering the Malkhana. The alleged confession of Kalicharan before police and court staff is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
11. It was further urged that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of theft under Section 380 IPC, namely dishonest intention and removal of movable property from possession of another Page 7 of 22 without consent. The alleged contraband ganja was found within the Malkhana itself and never removed therefrom. Hence, no offence of theft was completed.
12. As regards Section 454 IPC, it was submitted that there was no evidence of any "lurking house trespass" by the appellants with intent to commit an offence. The key of the Malkhana was admittedly in the custody of the Nazir, and no duplicate key was seized from the appellants. In the absence of a spot map or evidence connecting the inspection room with the Malkhana, the inference of trespass is speculative.
13. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court ignored the defence evidence of D.W.1, which largely corroborates to the evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.6, which established that appellant Kalicharan was a victim of circumstance, not a perpetrator.
14. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State supported the judgment and argued that the prosecution witnesses are consistent and reliable. The physical recovery of Kalicharan Verma from the locked Malkhana and the suspicious conduct of Daitary Bag form an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing to their guilt. The defence plea of abduction and unconsciousness is wholly implausible and unsupported by Page 8 of 22 any medical or corroborative evidence. It is urged that the learned Trial Court has rightly drawn inference from the proved facts.
15. I have carefully and extensively gone through the prosecution evidence as well as the defence plea raised by the appellants. In the light of the submission made by the parties, I have also analyzed the impugned judgment.
16. Initially, it appears that the accused persons stood charged for alleged commission of offence under Sections 454/380/201/34 IPC read with Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act. The present appellants in both the appeals have been convicted only for offence under Sections 454/380/34 IPC and have been acquitted for offence under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act. The co-accused Gopal Pradhan and Sunil Mishra have been acquitted of all the charges. When a query was posed to the counsel for the State as to whether an appeal has been filed against such acquittal, the learned counsel for the State answered negatively. Therefore, in the absence of any appeal filed by the State, I am not inclined to venture into the records to ascertain whether the acquittal recorded in favour of the appellants as well as the other accused persons are justified or not. However, so as to ascertain whether on the strength of the evidence on record any case under Section 380 IPC or Page 9 of 22 Section 454 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is made out or not and to ascertain the culpability of the appellants in so far as the offence, as mentioned above, I with the help of the counsel appearing for the parties delve into the entire evidence on record.
17. In the present case, the evidence of P.W.1, the informant; P.W.5, the wife of the informant; P.W.7, the Process Server of the Civil Court, Sambalpur; P.W.8, an independent witness, who lend corroboration to the testimony of the eye witness; P.W.9, the Malkhana Guard of the Sessions Court Malkhana; P.W.10, the Nazir of Civil Court, Sambalpur, who had taken over the charge from appellant Daitary Bag; P.W.12, the Steno who was called by P.W.1, the informant immediately after the incident had happened, are the crucial witnesses to the prosecution.
18. P.W.1, the informant was employed as Watchman of the Civil Court, Sambalpur. Republic day (26.01.1994) was the date of occurrence. The said witness deposed that on 26.01.1994 morning at about 6.00 to 7.00 A.M. the appellant Daitary Bag came to the court premises and asked him to open the office room to work. He obliged and opened the door and requested him to call him to lock the door again when he leave the court premises and he went back to his quarter, which is situated back side of the civil court. At Page 10 of 22 about 10.00 A.M. his wife while returning from the market shouted him saying someone was inside the Malkhana, though the Malkhana was locked from outside. Immediately, both of them went near the door only to discover that someone inside the Malkhana, pushed and pulled the Malkhana door and through the broken window, this witness saw a person inside the Malkhana. Immediately, at that point of time, appellant Daitary Bag came out of the guest room, which was nearer to the Malkhana and stated that there is no one so nothing to worry about it. When both P.W.1 and his wife ascertained the presence of someone inside the Malkhana, he started profusely pleading them not shout. The witness also stated that he immediately called the Nazir, however the Nazir was found absent. Therefore, he went to one Panda Babu (P.W.12) Steno to the Registrar and told him about the incident. Immediately, thereafter Panda Babu (P.W.12), the Typist Barik Babu arrived and Panda Babu asked P.W.1 to go and open the Registrar‟s room and made a phone call to the CJM and thereafter the SDJM arrived at the office room and the CJM also arrived. The CJM asked Panda babu to make a call to the police and accordingly Panda babu informed the incident to the police. Police arrived and a report Ext.1, was submitted by the said witness. He has also deposed that in presence of everyone, police opened the Malkhana and rescued/recovered the appellant Page 11 of 22 Kalicharan from inside the Malkhana. He further stated that police in presence of Nazir, SDJM and CJM, opened the Malkhana, inspected and de- locked the Malkhana.
P.W.5, the wife of the P.W.1, the informant, who first discovered that someone was inside the Malkhana, has deposed that on 26.01.1994 at 10.00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. while she was returning from the Golabazar, she saw although the Malkhana room was locked from outside, but Malkhana door was trumbling as if somebody is pulling it from inside. She waited thereafter some time and again saw the same thing. She came running to the quarter and informed to her husband that somebody is pulling the door from inside in the Malkhana. Both her husband and she reached the spot, accused Daitrary Bag came out from the guest house building and asked not to disclose this aspect to anyone. She further stated that when they declined to adhere to the request of the accused, he caught hold of her both the legs and pleaded requested her to allow him to open the lock in order to remove the person inside the Malkhana. But she refused to succumb to his pressure. She further stated that Panda Babu, the Steno of Registrar Office arrived there accompanied by other persons working in the civil court. All of them saw the accused Kalicharan inside to the broken window of the Malkhana. She Page 12 of 22 again stated that on telephone call CJM and SDJM arrived at the spot and the police was also called. Police waited till 4.00 „O‟ clock evening and when Nazir babu came, the lock of the Malkhana was opened. Thereafter the accused Kalicharan was rescued from the said Malkhana.
This part of the version was directly supported by P.W.12, the Steno of the Registrar, Civil Court. He deposed that on 26.01.1994 at about 12.00 A.M. he was in his house. The night watchman, P.W.1 of civil court building came to his house and reported that a thief has entered into the court Malkhana, although there is a lock from outside. When he reached at the spot and enquired about the incident, P.W.1 informed him that in the morning accused Daitary Bag asked him to open the door of the adjacent room for working. Therefore, he obliged and opened the door. Similarly, the other witnesses, those who stated to have reached the spot immediately after they were informed, supported the version of P.W.1.
P.W.7, the Process Server of the Civil Court, Sambalpur stated that he saw the man inside the court Malkhana and also saw the gathering outside the court room. He stated that at 3.00 to 3.30 P.M. a man was brought out from the Malkhana and he identified the accused as Kalicharan. Page 13 of 22
P.W.8 was an independent witness. He deposed that he saw Kalicharan Verma, the accused on 26.01.1994 inside the Malkhana and was brought out from the Malkhana in presence of the police and the court staff. He further stated that he heard hullah and gathering in the court premises. Police reached there and accused Kalicharan Verma was recovered from the court Malkhana.
P.W.9 was another Malkhana Guard of Sessions Malkhana. He also stated that I saw the gathering at the Sessions Court, Malkhana. He further stated that he saw the Stenographers of District Judge and Registrar were there. One Panda Babu (P.W.12) was also there. He further stated that he saw P.W.8, Dara Singh and other witnesses were present in the premises. He deposed that the Nazir Rajhai Babu opened the lock of Nazirkhana and brought out the key of the Sessions Court Malkhana and opened the lock of the Sessions Court Malkhana. When the door was opened, he saw accused Verma was inside the Malkhana. He also stated that accused Kalicharan was brought out from the Malkhana along with certain packets and thereafter the Malkhana was re-locked.
19. Conjoint reading of the afore-discussed evidence of the witnesses leads to the sole conclusion that the accused-Kalicharan was unauthorizedly Page 14 of 22 entered into the court Malkhana and he was red-handedly caught by P.Ws.1 and 5. Both the witnesses called not only the officials including the judicial officers but also informed the incident to the police. The police in presence of the entire gathering opened the malkhana door and brought out Kalicharan. Lurking and trespassing into the malkhana by Kalicharan could only be possible because of the active assistance given by the accused Daitary Bag. It further appears from the evidence that Daitary Bag has conspired and rendered help to unauthorizedly allow Kalicharan to enter inside the malkhana. When he got exposed, he started to pleading before P.Ws.1 and 5 to save him.
20. This being the collective evidence and on the strength of the same, whether the offence under Section 380 IPC or Section 454 IPC is made out or not is the issue to be determined.
21. Section 378 IPC defines theft. For the convenience of ready reference, the provision is reproduced:-
"378. Theft- Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Explanation 1.- A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.Page 15 of 22
Explanation 2. - A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.
Explanation 3. - A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
Explanation 4. - A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
Explanation 5. - The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
Similarly, Section 454 of IPC reads as under:
"454 - Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment - Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to ten years."
22. From the evidences, it is very clear that accused Kalicharan in connivance with the accused Daitary Bag had entered inside the malkhana with an only moto to carry out theft. However, could not succeed on their attempt, as by the time they could accomplish their mission, P.Ws.1 and 5 raised alarm and the sequence of event as unfolded and narrated on that day has already been discussed above. Therefore, in my considered opinion, no case under Section 380 of IPC is made out even if the evidence of the prosecution is taken at its face value. It could be safely inferred that the prosecution could not prove the ingredients of the offence under Section 380 Page 16 of 22 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that accused appellants are not guilty of the offence under Section 380 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the said charge.
23. In so far as the ingredients required to establish the offence under Section 454 IPC is concerned, the material has come on record through the evidence of P.W.1, the informant; P.W.5, the wife of the informant; P.W.7, the process server of the Civil Court, Sambalpur; P.W.8, an independent witness, who lend corroboration to the testimony of the eye witness; P.W.9, the Malkhana Guard of the Sessions Court Malkhana; P.W.10, the Nazir of Civil Court, Sambalpur, who had taken over the charge from appellant Daitary Bag; P.W.12, the Steno, who was called by P.W.1, the informant immediately after the incident had happened.
24. The defence has vividly cross-examined all the witnesses, however nothing could be elucidated from the witnesses to create any doubt in that regard. The evidence in unison, unequivocally establishes that the accused Kalicharan by lurking into the civil court malkhana attempted to commit theft, however, he was caught on the intervention of the witnesses. He was brought out from the malkhana by the police in presence of not only the court staff and independent witnesses, but also in presence of judicial Page 17 of 22 officers. The post and pre conduct of the co-accused Daitary Bag leads to the only conclusion that he had conspired with the co-accused and rendered effective assistance to commit the crime. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 34 of IPC, too is satisfied and well established on record. There is no iota of doubt that accused Daitary Bag has committed a criminal act in furtherance of a common intention to commit the crime of theft by lurking house trespass with the co-accused. Therefore, the prosecution could successfully bring home the charge of Section 454 IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accordingly, both the accused are found guilty of offence under Sections 454/34 IPC.
25. The learned trial court awarded sentence of two years R.I. for offence under Section 454 IPC. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, particularly an offence, which has been committed in the court premises by a court staff, I am not inclined to reduce the sentence even alive to the fact that the incident relates back to the year 1994. However, one fact is steering on the face of record, which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the quantum of sentence, i.e., at the time of offence the appellant-Daitary Bag was aged about 52 years and accused Kalicharan Verma was 35 years of age. After passage of more than three decades, they would be at their late Page 18 of 22 evening of life at the age of 83 years and 66 years respectively. In that light of the matter, the prayer made by the appellants to treat them either under the Probation of the Offenders Act or under Section 360 Cr.P.C., which was turned down by the learned trial court deserve merit to be considered.
26. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident pertains to the year 1994. The appellants have undergone the rigors of trial for about four years. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred in the year 1998. The appeal has been prolonging to be heard for about 27 years. The appellants are now in their late evening of life, therefore sending them to custody for fulfilling their remaining sentence at this belated stage would serve no purpose. The learned Counsel further submitted that the appellants have no criminal antecedents and no other case of a similar nature or otherwise is stated to be pending against them. Over the years, they have led a dignified life, integrated well into society, and are presently leading a settled family life. Incarcerating them after such a long delay, it is argued, would serve little penological purpose and may in fact be counter- productive, casting a needless stigma not only upon them but also upon their family members, especially when there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance with regulatory norms. Therefore, in Page 19 of 22 the fitness of situation, the appellants may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr.P.C. I am inclined to accede to the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants on the facts scenario of the case.
27. In Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab1, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the object of the Probation of Offenders Act is to reform the individual offender and to prevent the conversion of a youthful or first-time offender into a habitual criminal by subjecting him to prison life. It was held thus: -
"The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly stated, the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 years absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the conditions laid down in the appropriate provisions of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case; including the nature of the offence and the character of 1 AIR 1965 SC 444 Page 20 of 22 the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act."
28. In light of the aforementioned precedent, regard being had to the societal position of the appellants, clean antecedents and the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1994, I am of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Additionally, the case of the appellants is also covered by the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra2 and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu vs. State of Orissa3.
29. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far as the conviction is concerned is turned down. But instead of sentencing the appellants to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellants to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year on their executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each within one month with one surety each for the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, the appellants shall keep peace and good behavior and they shall 2 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469 3 2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250 Page 21 of 22 remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of one year.
30. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals are partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 27th of November, 2025/Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Dec-2025 11:00:09 Page 22 of 22