State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 S. 482 Penal Code, 1860 Ss. 420 r/w. 120B Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Ss. 13 (2) r/w. 13(1)(d) Allegations against the accused are very serious including hatching a criminal conspiracy in allotment of plots in the discretionary quota arbitrarily and to their own family members / relatives. There are specific allegations with respect to huge loss caused to the public exchequer, as according to the prosecution the plots were allotted at throw away prices. All these aspects are required to be considered at the stage of trial and not while considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

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 minitrial. Therefore, as such the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused is unsustainable, both, in law and/or facts and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Case Law Reference

  1. Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2011) 9 SCC 354
  2. ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781
  3. Charanjit Lamba v. Army Southern Command, (2010) 11 SCC 314
  4. Padma v. Hiralal Motilal Desarda, (2002) 7 SCC 564
  5. State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604
  6. Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., (1991) 1 SCC 212