Orissa High Court
Jagannath Prasad Mohanty vs State Of Odisha And (Vig.) .... Opp. ... on 7 November, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
AFR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.540 of 2025
Jagannath Prasad Mohanty .... Petitioners
and another
Mr. P. Patnaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and (Vig.) .... Opp. Party
Mr. Sangram Das, SC (Vigilance)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 07.11.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. The legality, propriety, and correctness of the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack in T.R. Case No. 19 of 2024 have been called in question in this Revision.
2. The background facts of the case are that the Executive Engineer, R.W.S.S. Division, Kendrapara issued a supply order to M/s. Hari Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Balasore on 16.10.2008 for the supply of PVC pipes to the extent of 183.369362 M.T. for an amount of Rs.1,36,28,011/- at the rate of Rs.74,320/- per M.T. as per the Rate Contract Circular No. 6714/E.P.&M. dated 17.09.2008 issued by the Director, E.P.&M., Odisha, Bhubaneswar.
A few days thereafter, i.e., on 21.10.2008, while the said contract was in force, a revised downward rate contract circular was CRLREV No.540 of 2025 Page 1 of 8 issued vide Office No. 7260/E.P.M. dated 21.10.2008, fixing the rate at Rs.65,700/- per M.T. Upon receipt of the revised rate contract circular, the Executive Engineer, R.W.S.S. Division, Kendrapara refused to release the payment at the higher rate as per the earlier circular dated 17.09.2008, taking the view that the revised rate should apply retrospectively.
Aggrieved thereby, M/s. Hari Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Balasore submitted a representation before the Director, E.P.&M., Odisha, Bhubaneswar vide Letter No. FF/COM/046/01/08-09/1144 dated 15.11.2008, requesting his intervention and seeking a direction to the Executive Engineer, R.W.S.S., Kendrapara to release payment at the rate mentioned in the original supply order in accordance with the earlier rate contract circular dated 17.09.2008.
The said representation of M/s. Hari Udyog Pvt. Ltd. was examined by the officers of the Marketing Section, Directorate of E.P.&M., Odisha, Bhubaneswar, who made favourable notes in the note sheet (pages 40 to 44 of File No. IEMM-1/07/EPM), allegedly in violation of Amendment Resolution No. VII-SL/15/2004/20552/I dated 01.12.2004, and without taking into account the revised downward rate contract circular. It is alleged that they thereby showed undue official favour to M/s. Hari Udyog Pvt. Ltd. by recommending release of the withheld payment at the higher rate of Rs.74,320/- per M.T. as per the earlier circular dated 17.09.2008, in connivance with each other and with ulterior motive.
It is further alleged that Mr. P.K. Mallick, Director, E.P.&M., Odisha, without due care, concurred with the recommendation of the officers and passed an order vide No. CRLREV No.540 of 2025 Page 2 of 8 IEMM-1/07-7864/EPM, Bhubaneswar dated 18.11.2008, directing the Executive Engineer, R.W.S.S. Division, Kendrapara to release the withheld payment of M/s. Hari Udyog Pvt. Ltd. at the higher rate as per the previous rate contract circular, with retrospective effect. This was allegedly done in violation of the Government Resolution, resulting in a loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of Rs.15,76,976/-.
Verification of documents collected from the offices of the Director, E.P.&M., Odisha, Bhubaneswar and the Executive Engineer, R.W.S.S. Division, Kendrapara revealed that twelve supply orders were issued on 16.10.2008 to M/s. Hari Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Balasore for supply of pipes within 30 days at the rate of Rs.74,320/- per M.T., instead of the revised rate of Rs.65,700/- per M.T. The enquiry further revealed that the officials, including the Petitioners, did not adhere to the direction of this Court dated 29.03.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 17031 of 2006, wherein it was categorically held that the public exchequer should not be burdened by paying a higher price for any commodity than the actual rate at which it can be procured.
Accordingly, the FIR was registered, and a charge-sheet was submitted against the Petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said charge-sheet, the Petitioners approached the learned court below seeking discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. The learned court, after hearing the parties, declined the prayer of the Petitioners and rejected the application for discharge vide the impugned order dated 10.07.2025.
CRLREV No.540 of 2025 Page 3 of 83. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioners, vehemently argued that the order passed by the Director, E.P.&M., Bhubaneswar, was in accordance with the relevant notification issued by the Government. He drew the attention of this Court to the provisions contained in the notification of the Industries Department, Government of Odisha, delineating the functions and powers of the Director, E.P.&M., and contended that the direction issued by the Petitioners was within their lawful authority. It was therefore submitted that, having acted within the ambit of law, the Petitioners cannot be held prima facie liable for the alleged offences.
4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the State (Vigilance), on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the Petitioners and submitted that the arguments advanced by Mr. Patnaik pertain to matters of defence, which can be agitated during trial. He further contended that the allegations made against the Petitioners disclose a prima facie case sufficient for framing of charges, and hence, the impugned order warrants no interference.
5. At this stage, it is apposite to recall the settled legal position. In State by Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. R. Soundirarasu Etc., reported in (2023) 6 SCC 768, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated and clarified the governing principles, observing as follows: -
"55. The nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of charge came up for consideration of this Court in Onkar Nath Mishra and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2008) 2 SCC 561, and referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659, CRLREV No.540 of 2025 Page 4 of 8 and the State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338, it was held that at that stage, the Court has to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. The relevant observations made in the judgment are as follows:-
"11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."
56. Then again in the case of Som Nath Thapa (supra), a three- Judge Bench of this Court, after noting the three pairs of Sections i.e. (i) Sections 227 and 228 resply in so far as the sessions trial is concerned; (ii) Sections 239 and 240 resply relatable to the trial of warrant cases; and
(iii) Sections 245(1) and (2) qua the trial of summons cases, which dealt with the question of framing of charge or discharge, stated thus: (SCC p. 671, para 32).
"32...if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the CRLREV No.540 of 2025 Page 5 of 8 materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."
57. In a later decision in Mohanlal Soni (supra), this Court, referring to several of its previous decisions, held that: (SCC p. 342, para 7) "7. The crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused."
58. Reiterating a similar view in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2013) 11 SCC 476, it was observed by this Court that while framing charges the court is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record to decide whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence and it is not required to evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict the accused. It was held that the Court at this stage cannot speculate into the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations and contradictions & inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses cannot be looked into at the stage of discharge.
75. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 631, this Court held as under:-
"3.....The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the CRLREV No.540 of 2025 Page 6 of 8 face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged."
76. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure."
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and upon careful perusal of the case record, this Court is of the view that the grounds urged by the Petitioners particularly their assertion that the impugned directions were issued in due exercise of the statutory powers of the Director, E.P.&M. and in accordance with the then-prevailing Government notifications, necessitate a detailed examination of the relevant documents and administrative instructions during the course of trial.
7. At this stage, the materials collected during investigation, including the note-sheet entries recommending release of payment at the earlier, higher rate despite the issuance of the revised downward rate contract circular, prima facie indicate the involvement of the Petitioners in the decision-making process culminating in the alleged undue pecuniary advantage to the supplier. Whether the Petitioners acted strictly within the confines CRLREV No.540 of 2025 Page 7 of 8 of their authority or in deviation of the applicable Government Resolution and judicial directions is a matter that can only be established upon appreciation of evidence and at this stage, no conclusion can be drawn in their favour to exclude their role in issuing the directions for release of payments retrospectively at a higher rate.
8. In such circumstances, this Court finds no apparent illegality, perversity, or procedural impropriety in the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack in T.R. Case No. 19 of 2024, rejecting the application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The CRLREV is accordingly dismissed.
The Petitioners, however, are at liberty to raise all such grounds during trial, as no apparent illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order warranting interference at this stage.
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge A.K.Pradhan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 10-Nov-2025 17:24:22 CRLREV No.540 of 2025 Page 8 of 8