Orissa High Court
Baladev Rath vs State Of Odisha ....... Opp. Party on 5 May, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2653 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973)
Baladev Rath ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Opp. Party
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra-4, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. S. J. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 16.04.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 05.05.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court questioning the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the learned
J.M.F.C., Boden in C.T. Case No.180 of 2019, whereby the learned
Court below has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under
Section 409 of I.P.C. against the petitioner.
2. An F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner on 10.08.2019 inter
alia alleging that the petitioner while working as a District Child
Protection Officer at Nuapada has misappropriated government funds
under Biju Sishu Surakhya Yojana (BSSY) by selecting fake beneficiary
like one Siba Prasad Behera., who is neither an orphan nor
affected/infected by HIV/AIDS, hence, intentionally violated BSSY
guidelines. The F.I.R. was registered by one Gopal Chandra Das
claiming himself to be a social worker. The Investigating Agency picked
up the investigation, however, took more than five years to complete the
investigation and eventually filed the charge-sheet on 15.02.2024.
Subsequently, vide order dated 22.02.2024, the learned J.M.F.C., Boden
has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 409 of I.P.C. against
the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cognizance order and
has challenged the same on various grounds.
3. Heard Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra 4, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S. J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel
for the State.
Page 2 of 14
4. The prominent ground emphasized by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel
for the petitioner that the cognizance could not have been taken against
the petitioner for the offence under Section 409 I.P.C. without valid
sanction as the petitioner is a government servant. He has read out
extensively Section 197 Cr.P.C. and also relied upon series of judgments
starting from the case of Ramakanta Sahoo vrs Suresh Prasad Panda1
to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suneeti
Toteja vrs. State of U.P. and another2.
5. On the contrary, Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the opposite party submitted that in order to arrive at any
conclusion regarding the question as to whether "the act complained of"
is in the discharge of his official duty of the petitioner or not, could only
be effectively examined and answered during the course of trial. The
question of sanction should be subjected to the final outcome of trial.
The applicability of sanction provided U/s 197 Cr.P.C. and its validity
being a question poised with facts and law needs to be thrashed out in
1
CRLMC No.661 of 2004
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 433
Page 3 of 14
the trial alone. To substantiate the said submission the learned ASC, has
placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Romesh
Lal Jain V. Naginder Singh Rana3
"33. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that
whereas an order of sanction in terms of Section 197 CrPC is
required to be obtained when the offence complained of against
the public servant is attributable to the discharge of his public
duty or has a direct nexus therewith, but the same would not be
necessary when the offence complained of has nothing to do
with the same. A plea relating to want of sanction although
desirably should be considered at an early stage of the
proceedings, but the same would not mean that the accused
cannot take the said plea or the court cannot consider the same
at a later stage. Each case has to be considered on its own facts.
Furthermore, there may be cases where the question as to
whether the sanction was required to be obtained or not would
not be possible to be determined unless some evidence is taken,
and in such an event, the said question may have to be
considered even after the witnesses are examined."
In light of the rival contention and judicial precedents cited, it becomes
necessary to scrutinize the nature of the alleged act "complained of" and
to determine whether it was committed in discharge of official duty by
the petitioner so as to attract protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
6. I have carefully gone through the case record and analysed the
judgment cited by both the counsel for the parties at the Bar. At the
3
(2006) 1 SCC 294
Page 4 of 14
outset, it is relevant to mention that as per the allegation made by the
prosecution the petitioner has misused his official position being a
District Child Protection Officer and by misinterpreting the BSSY
scheme has given benefit to one Siba Prasad Behera although he was not
eligible. The petitioner has deposited Rs.40,000/- to the account of Siba
Prasad Behera, who was otherwise not entitled to the benefit scheme.
Therefore, the act "complained of" against the petitioner is falling under
the "colour of the official duty". On that admitted factual premise, the
legality of the impugned order desired to be gone into.
7. The Court below has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. M.P. Gupta4 and concluded
that no sanction is required for prosecuting a public servant for offences
involving act of forgery of "valuable security". I have also examined the
judgment referred to by the learned trial Court. In that case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that when the allegations involve forgery of
valuable security and related dealings, such acts cannot be considered as
4
(2004) 2 SCC 349
Page 5 of 14
part of the public servant's official duties. Hence, in such circumstances,
prosecution can proceed without prior sanction if the public servant is
found to have committed such offences. The relevant part of the M.P.
Gupta (supra) judgment is reproduced for better appreciation:-
"22. Above views are reiterated in State of Kerala v. V.
Padmanabhan Nail (1999) 5 SCC 690: 1999 SCC (Crl.) 1031.
Both Amrik Singh (AIR 1955 SC 309: (1955) 1 SCR 1302: 1955
Crl LJ 865 and Shrrekantiah AIR 1955 SC 287 (1995) 1 SCR
1177: 1955 Cri LJ 857 were noted in that case. Sections 467,
468 and 471 IPC relate to forgery of valuable security, Will etc;
forgery for the purpose of cheating and using as genuine a
forged document respectively. It is no part of the duty of a public
servant while discharging his official duties to commit forgery of
the type covered by the aforesaid offences, Want of sanction
under Section 197 of the Code is, therefore, no bar."
In light of the above legal position, it becomes imperative to
assess whether the alleged acts attributed to the petitioner fall within the
ambit of duties performed in the discharge of official functions. If the
acts in question, as alleged, pertain to forgery or manipulation of
valuable security which are clearly outside the scope of lawful public
duty as recognized in M.P. Gupta (supra) then the protection under
Section 197 Cr.P.C. may not be available. However, to properly
determine the applicability of such protection, factual matrix of the
Page 6 of 14
present case must be considered, including the identity and locus of the
complainant, as well as the nature of the allegations.
8. The law operating in the field of sanction is no more res integra.
This Court while deciding the case of Nruparaj Sahu vrs. State of
Odisha and another5 has extensively dealt with the issue in subject and
held that protection given under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is aim to safeguard
a responsible public servant against the institution of possibly vexatious
criminal proceedings for the offences alleged to have been committed by
them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servant. In the
instant case, the complaint is lodged by one Gopal Chandra Das, who
claims to be a social worker. The complainant does not claim to have
been affected in any manner whatsoever by the alleged act of the
petitioner.
9. I have perused the statement of the complainant namely Gopal
Chandra Dash, the person namely Siba Prasad Behera(dead) who has
allegedly been benefited from the scheme receiving assistance from the
5
CRLMC No.3816 of 2023
Page 7 of 14
accused-petitioner, the elder brother of Siba Prasad Behera and some
other persons who claimed to have known about the incident, recorded
under the Section 161 Cr.P.C.
It clearly emerges from the statements of the witnesses that their
testimonies are bereft of any credible or substantive material to establish
that Siba Prasad Behera was ineligible to avail the benefit of the scheme.
The informant masquerading himself to be a social worker have filed the
complaint sans any material support. Hence, it appears that the allegation
made against the petitioner is somehow motivated. Therefore, the
prosecution lodged against the petitioner appears to be poised with the
vexatious intention. Hence, the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
would have averted the malicious prosecution against the petitioner. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the absence of such
sanction vitiates the prosecution and renders the proceedings non-est in
law. This principle was reaffirmed in the case of Suneeti Toteja vrs.
State of U.P. & Another (supra) by taking a note of its judgment in
Page 8 of 14
Amod Kumar Kanth vrs. Association of victim of Uphaar Tragedy6 and
held thus:-
"27. In Amod Kumar Kanth v. Association of Victim of
Uphaar Tragedy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 578 disposed of by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court on 20.04.2023, of which one of
us (Nagarathna, J.) was a member, it was observed that the
question of cognizance being taken in the absence of sanction
and thereby Section 197 of the CrPC being flouted is not to be
conflated and thereby confused with the question as to whether
an offence has been committed. The salutary purpose behind
Section 197 of the CrPC is protection being accorded to public
servants. In paragraphs 28, 29 and 31, it was observed as
under:
"(28) The State functions through its officers. Functions of
the State may be sovereign or not sovereign. But each of the
functions performed by every public servant is intended to
achieve public good. It may come with discretion. The exercise
of the power cannot be divorced from the context in which and
the time at which the power is exercised or if it is a case of an
omission, when the omission takes place.
(29) The most important question which must be posed and
answered by the Court when dealing with the argument that
sanction is not forthcoming is whether the officer was acting in
the exercise of his official duties. It goes further. Even an officer
who acts in the purported exercise of his official power is given
the protection under Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. This is for good
reason that the officer when he exercises the power can go
about exercising the same fearlessly no doubt with bona fides as
public functionaries can act only bona fide. In fact, the
requirement of the action being bona fide is not expressly stated
in Section 197 of the Cr. P.C., though it is found in many other
statutes protecting public servants from action, civil and
criminal against them.
6
2023 SCC OnLine SC 578
Page 9 of 14
xxxx
(31) One ground which has found favour with the High
Court against the appellant is that the appellant, according to
the High Court, could raise the issue before the Magistrate.
(32) Here we may notice one aspect. When the question
arises as to whether an act or omission which constitutes an
offence in law has been done in the discharge of official
functions by a public servant and the matter is under a mist and
it is not clear whether the act is traceable to the discharge of his
official functions, the Court may in a given case tarry and allow
the proceedings to go on. Materials will be placed before the
Court which will make the position clear and a delayed decision
on the question may be justified. However, in a case where the
act or the omission is indisputably traceable to the discharge of
the official duty by the public servant, then for the Court to not
accept the objection against cognizance being taken would
clearly defeat the salutary purpose which underlies
Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. It all depends on the facts and
therefore, would have to be decided on a case-to-case basis."
It was concluded that learned Magistrate had erred in the
facts of the said case in taking cognizance against the appellant
therein contrary to the mandate of Section 197 of the CrPC and
on that short ground alone, the appeal was allowed and the
proceedings challenged in Section 482 CrPC were quashed.
However, it was observed that the same would not stand in the
way of the competent authority taking a decision in the matter
and/or granting sanction for prosecuting the appellant therein
in accordance with law.
28. In another case titled Amrik Singh v. The State of
PEPSU, AIR 1955 SC 309, this Court explained the scope of
Section 197 of CrPC as follows:
"8. ... It is not every offence committed by a public servant
that requires sanction for prosecution under section 197(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure; nor even every act done by
him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his
official duties; but if the act complained of is directly concerned
with his official duties so that, if questioned, it could be claimed
to have been done by virtue of the office, then sanction would be
Page 10 of 14
necessary; and that would be so, irrespective of whether it was,
in fact, a proper discharge of his duties, because that would
really be a matter of defence on the merits, which would have to
be investigated at the trial, and could not arise at the stage of
the grant of sanction, which must precede the institution of the
prosecution."
The Court thereunder further concluded that:
"12 ... The result then is that whether sanction is necessary
to prosecute a public servant on a charge of criminal
misappropriation, will depend on whether the acts complained
of hinge on his duties as a public servant. If they do, then
sanction is requisite. But if they are unconnected with such
duties, then no sanction is necessary."
29. As per the aforementioned proposition, it is only to be
seen if the accused public servant was acting in the
performance of his/her official duties, and if the answer is in the
affirmative, then prior sanction for their prosecution is a
condition precedent to the cognizance of the cases against them
by the courts. It is therefore largely a disputed question of fact
here and not a question of law. However, this fact of appellant
herein acting in her official capacity is not seriously contested
by the respondents herein. In the instant case, the appellant had
filed the counter affidavit and interacted with the complainant in her capacity of a Presiding Officer, ICC. The correctness of the allegations with regard to the conduct of the appellant need not be ascertained herein by this Court but the fact that she was acting in her official duty is sufficient to hold that a prior sanction from the department was in fact necessary before the Magistrate taking cognizance against her. The Magistrate therefore erred in proceeding to take cognizance against the appellant without the sanction for prosecution being received from BIS, and since BIS has eventually refused to grant sanction for the prosecution of the appellant, the prosecution against the appellant could not have been sustained."
Page 11 of 14
Similar view has also been taken by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramakanta Sahoo vrs. Suresh Prasad Panda7. The ratio laid down in Paragraph-4 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
"4. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, perusing the pleadings and on perusing the judgments relied upon by the petitioner referred to herein above, it appears that the scope and ambit of the protection granted under Section 197, Cr.P.C to a public servant, has repeatedly been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments as well as in the case of Anjani Kumar (Supra). In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to hold that once it is established that act or omission was done by the public servant while discharging his duty then the scope of its being official should be construed so as to advance the objective of the Section in favour of the public servant. It is further noted in the said judgment that if it is prima facie, found that the act or omission for which the accused was charged which has a reasonable connection with the discharge of his duty then it must be held to be official, to which applicability of Section 197, Cr.P.C cannot be disputed."
10. In the instant case, after investigation, the Investigating Agency has filed charge-sheet inter alia arriving at the following conclusion:-
"During investigation it is ascertained that Baladev Rath the then Dist. Child Protection Officer, Nuapada has misappropriated the Govt. fund under Biju Shishu Surakshya Jojana by selecting fake beneficiary like Siba Prasad Behera S/O Late Baburao Behera of village Karlaote under Boden 7 CRLMC No.661 of 2004 Page 12 of 14 Block who is neither orphan nor affected or infected by HIV/Aids and intentionally violating the BSSY guidelines and deposited Rs.40,000/- in the SBI account vide No.11846521963 of fake beneficiary Siba Prasad Behera of Karlokate which depriving the real beneficiary which is not judicious, but against the child rights.
The case has been supervised by Sru B.P. Dehuri, OPS, Ex SDPO, Kharirar who opined that it is a true case U/s 409 IPC and the accused Baladev Rath (45) S/O Late Chintamani Ratha Sharama of village Gotma PS-Jonk Dist-Nuapada the Ex DCOP, DCPO Nuapada is liable for the offence. After complete of investigation orders has been obtained from SP, Kalahandi for submission of CS in this case.
An investigation of the case is completed and there is prima facie evidence well-made out u/s 409 IPC against accused Baladev Rath (45) S/O Late Chintamani Ratha Sharama of village Gotma PS-Jonk Dist-Nuapada the Ex DCOP, DCPO Nuapada. Hence, I submitted CS U/s 409 IPC against him to stand his trial in the court of law vide CS No.29 dt 15.02.2024 to stand his case in the court of law.
11. Taking into consideration the allegation made against the petitioner in the F.I.R. and subsequent charge-sheet and the document form part of the charge-sheet, I have no hesitation to hold that the allegation against the petitioner is forming part of his official duty and that the act "complained of" against the petitioner may not fall under the definition of forging valuable security as held in M.P. Gupta (supra) or any such grievous offence which can be proceeded with, independent of sanction. Therefore, the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was inevitable in the facts scenario of the present case. In absence of sanction Page 13 of 14 under Section 197 Cr.P.C. obtained by the prosecution, the learned Court below ought not to have been taken cognizance. Hence, the petition deserves merit.
12. Accordingly, the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Boden in C.T. Case No.180 of 2019 and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner is quashed.
13. The CRLMC is disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 5th of May, 2025/ Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-May-2025 10:38:01 Page 14 of 14