Orissa High Court
Bibhuti Bhusan Ray vs State Of Orissa (Vigilance) .... Opp. ... on 12 November, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
AFR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.244 of 2025
Bibhuti Bhusan Ray .... Petitioner
Mr. M. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa (Vigilance) .... Opp. Party
Mr. Sangram Das, SC
Vigilance Department
CRLREV No.165 of 2025
Prakash Chandra Patra and .... Petitioners
Others
Mr. S. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa (Vigilance) .... Opp. Party
Mr. Sangram Das, SC,
Vigilance Department
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 12.11.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. The legality, propriety, and correctness of the order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.30 of 2014 have been CRLREV Nos.244 of 2025 & 165 of 2025 Page 1 of 11 assailed in these Criminal Revisions. Since both CRLREV No.244 of 2025, filed by Bibhuti Bhusan Ray, and CRLREV No.165 of 2025, filed by Prakash Chandra Patra and others, arise out of the same impugned order and involve co-accused challenging identical issues, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The background facts of the case are that, on the allegation of corruption by officials of the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) and the Housing and Urban Development (H&UD) Department in the matter of allotment of ten plots under the scheme "District Centre, Self-Financing Commercial Complex, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar", an enquiry was initiated by the Vigilance Department. It was alleged that the plots were allotted to the relatives of the officials without following due procedure and at a rate lower than the benchmark value, causing financial loss to the BDA.
The DSP, Vigilance Cell, Bhubaneswar, lodged an FIR against the Petitioners and others, who had held different positions under the Government during the year 2000. It was alleged that they, by abusing their official positions and entering into a criminal conspiracy, distributed ten Government plots in a prime locality among themselves or in the names of their close relatives at nominal rates, thereby defeating the very purpose of the Government's alienation of land in favour of the BDA for commercial purposes. Consequently, wrongful loss was caused to the BDA as the plots were allotted at rates far below the prevailing market value.
CRLREV Nos.244 of 2025 & 165 of 2025 Page 2 of 11Pursuant to the report of enquiry by the DSP, Vigilance Cell, the FIR was registered and investigation commenced. In course of the investigation, it was revealed that the Government of Odisha, in G.A. Department, had alienated 35.120 acres of land vide Order No.10474/GA dated 19.06.1989 (modified by Order No.CA/AL(B)-30/93-5829/GA dated 22.05.1998) in favour of the BDA under Mouza-Chandrasekharpur within the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation area for establishment of a Commercial Shopping Complex.
The BDA thereafter introduced the above scheme and published a brochure detailing the categories of plots, terms and conditions, payment schedule, and the process of allotment. Applications were invited through advertisement published in "The Samaj" on 28.11.1992. In total, 510 applications were received, and a lottery was conducted on 17.06.1996 for allotment of 224 commercial plots.
It is further revealed that the Chairman of the BDA (being the Minister of Housing & Urban Development) had a discretionary quota of 10% of the total plots. Allotments made under this quota by one Chairman were later cancelled and fresh allotments were made by his successor. Some unsuccessful applicants challenged the allotment process before this Court in several O.J.C. cases, pursuant to which directions were issued for reconsideration, resulting in another lottery conducted on 03.01.2000.
The layout plan was revised multiple times between 1994 and 2001, and ultimately 379 commercial plots were carved out.
CRLREV Nos.244 of 2025 & 165 of 2025 Page 3 of 11However, the BDA could not satisfactorily explain the carving out of additional plots in each revision. Investigation revealed that ten vacant plots-Nos. 263(C), 303(D), 263(E), 54, 318(A), 35, 318(B), 317, 263(B/3), and 43-were allotted without advertisement to close relatives of BDA and H&UD officials, in violation of the procedure. The plots were allotted through plain paper applications without inviting public tenders or maintaining transparency. The noting of the then Secretary, Sri P.K. Patnaik, OAS-I, dated 24.08.2000, indicated that allotment was made on a "first-come- first-served" basis, bypassing the prescribed procedure. Consequently, undue favour was extended to certain applicants, resulting in financial loss to the BDA. The investigation further revealed that the plots were allotted at much lower rates than the market value, and the BDA sustained a loss of ₹71, 57,032.70. The officers concerned failed to justify the absence of public advertisement and the distortion of layout maps to accommodate specific applicants. Certain officials, including Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Roy, Section Officer, were found to have abused their official positions for personal gain.
From the evidence collected, prima facie materials were found against the Petitioners and others for offences under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 420/120-B of the IPC. Accordingly, charge-sheet was submitted vide F.F. No.12 dated 20.05.2014, and the Petitioners were called upon to stand trial. The Petitioners thereafter filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge.
CRLREV Nos.244 of 2025 & 165 of 2025 Page 4 of 113. Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the Petitioners acted under the directions of superior authorities and committed no irregularity. He argued that, as per the norms of the BDA prevailing at the relevant time, the Finance Member was the competent authority to determine plot value, which was duly approved by the competent authority. The Petitioners, being lower-level employees, had no role in fixation of rates and did not influence any higher authority. It was further contended that the relatives of the Petitioners, being adult individuals, were competent to apply for plots on their own, and therefore, no offence of cheating or conspiracy is made out against the Petitioners.
4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for the State (Vigilance), opposed the contentions of the Petitioners, submitting that there were blatant irregularities and deviation from the prescribed norms in the allotment process. He further contended that since the charge has already been framed, the question of discharge does not arise and the present revision is not maintainable.
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 CRLREV Nos.244 of 2025 & 165 of 2025 Page 5 of 11 referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659, 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 CRLREV Nos.244 of 2025 & 165 of 2025 Page 6 of 11 committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the 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 CRLREV Nos.244 of 2025 & 165 of 2025 Page 7 of 11 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 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 heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet, and other materials on record, it prima facie appears that substantial materials exist indicating the involvement of the Petitioners in the irregular allotment of plots. The manner in which the allotments were made-either in favour of the Petitioners or their relatives-was not in consonance with the prescribed norms or the principles of fair competition.
7. The contention advanced by Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that they had merely acted under instructions of their superior officers, and that the valuation of plots was determined by the Finance Member, are matters that can be examined only during trial. Whether the allotments were required to be made through public advertisement CRLREV Nos.244 of 2025 & 165 of 2025 Page 8 of 11 or auction, whether the plots were allotted in conformity with the intended commercial purpose, and the precise role and responsibility of each Petitioner in their respective official capacity, are all factual issues requiring evidentiary scrutiny. The allegations disclosed in the charge-sheet and the materials annexed thereto prima facie attribute responsibility to the Petitioners, and any documents sought to be relied upon to show that they acted pursuant to superior directions must necessarily be proved in accordance with law during trial.
8. Moreover, it is not out of place to mention that the Petitioners while challenged the order of cognizance before this Court in CRLMC No.3177 of 2017 along with CRLMC 4804 of 2015 this court vide order 04.09.2019 pleased to quash the cognizance whereupon the State (Vigilance) moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1455-1456 of 2021. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.12.2021, set aside the order of this Court with the following observation:
"09. While quashing the criminal proceedings the High Court has not at all adverted to itself the aforesaid aspects and has embarked upon an enquiry as to the reliability and genuineness of the evidence collected during the investigation as if the High Court was conducting the mini-trial. Therefore, as such the impugned judgment and order passed the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondents herein - original accused Nos. 4, 5 and 3
- Smt. Pratima Mohanty, Shri Prakash Chandra Patra and Shri Rajendra Kumar Samal is unsustainable, both in law and/or facts and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
CRLREV Nos.244 of 2025 & 165 of 2025 Page 9 of 1110. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above present appeals succeed. Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 04.09.2019 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3177 of 2017 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4804 of 2015 are hereby quashed and set aside in so far as quashing the criminal proceedings against original Accused Nos.4, 5 & 3 is concerned.
Respondent Nos.4,5 & 3 to face trial along with other co-accused.
Present Appeals are accordingly allowed."
9. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as extracted above, it is evident that the Petitioners are required to face the trial and had no scope to seek quashing of the charges at this stage. The very grounds on which the earlier cognizance order had been challenged before this Court grounds which stood expressly disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court have now been reiterated in support of the prayer for discharge. Once the Supreme Court held that this Court had erred in embarking upon a mini-trial while examining the materials collected during investigation, the Petitioners cannot seek, in the guise of an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C., an identical reappraisal of the same materials. In such circumstances, the learned Trial Court was justified in declining to take a different view while considering the discharge application.
10. The instructions furnished by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar further indicate that the discharge petition filed by CRLREV Nos.244 of 2025 & 165 of 2025 Page 10 of 11 accused Rajendra Kumar Samal had been rejected on 23.11.2024, and no discharge petition was filed by accused Bibhuti Bhusan Ray before the Trial Court. These facts also clarify that the Petitioners' challenge before this Court is neither supported by any fresh material nor premised on any new legal ground.
11. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.30 of 2014. The materials accompanying the charge-sheet, when taken at their face value, clearly disclose the existence of prima facie materials sufficient to presume that the Petitioners are required to stand trial. At this stage, a meticulous examination or evaluation of the probative value of the evidence is neither permissible nor warranted in law. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
12. The CRLREVs are accordingly dismissed.
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer CRLREV Nos.244 of 2025 & 165 of 2025 Page 11 of 11 Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 13-Nov-2025 16:49:34