Orissa High Court
Sangita Routray vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance)…… Opp. … on 30 June, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No. 449 of 2024
(An application under Sections 482 & 401, Cr.P.C. read with Section
397, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the
learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No.27 of
2017 arising out of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.10 of 2011)
-----------------
Sangita Routray ...... Petitioner
- versus -
State of Odisha (Vigilance)...... Opp. Party
For Petitioner :- Mr. L. Dash, Advocate
For Opp.Party :- Mr. Sangram Das,
Standing Counsel (Vigilance)
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment : 30.06.2025
1. The legality, propriety and correctness of the order
dated 09.07.2024 passed in T.R. Case No.27 of 2017 by the
learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack has been called in
question in this Revision.
2. The background facts of the case are that, on the basis
of credible information regarding possession of
disproportionate assets by the husband of the Petitioner
CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 1 of 8
namely Prasant Kumar Routray, the State Vigilance Wing
proceeded with an enquiry. In course of the enquiry, search
was also simultaneously conducted in the residential house of
the husband of the Petitioner at Mahanadi Vihar, Cuttack and
at other different places. Since no satisfactory explanation
could be offered with regard to acquisition of properties found
in the possession of the husband and the Petitioner so also in
the names of the family members, on the report submitted by
the Vigilance D.S.P., a case was registered under Section
13(2) & 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
read with Section 109 of the IPC.
3. In course of the investigation, a substantial portion of
disproportionate properties were found in possession of the
present Petitioner being the wife of Prasant Kumar Routray.
The Petitioner was also implicated in the case for having
abetted for the same and accordingly she is found implicated
in the offences under Section 13(2) & 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of
the IPC.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the
Vigilance Department, the Petitioner moved the learned Trial
Court for her discharge from the offences as alleged against
her, by filing an application under Section 27 of the Cr.P.C.
CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 2 of 8
5. The learned Special Judge (Vigilance) having
examined the relevant documents, found the Petitioner to be
an abettor and declined to discharge her from the charges, she
being an accused in the case. Being aggrieved by that order,
the Petitioner has moved herein before this Court.
6. The impugned order has been assailed by the Petitioner
herein on the ground that the Petitioner is a housewife and has
no independent income of her own and she has no scope also
to get way other than instructions, if any, given by her
husband in acquisition of the property in her name. It is the
further ground of defence of the Petitioner that the acquisition
of property is through her father and, as such, these properties
ought to have been included in the property held to have been
disproportionate to the known source of income of her
husband, and accordingly the Petitioner is entitled to be
discharged from the offences alleged.
7. Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the State
Vigilance on the contrary submitted that the grounds on which
the impugned order has been assailed, as submitted by the
Petitioner, requires substantial evidence to be led during trial.
He also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the matter of P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State represented
by the Inspector of Police, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC)
558, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has thoroughly dealt
CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 3 of 8
with the grounds on which the wife cannot escape the liability
in the event any property is acquired by her at the instance of
her husband.
8. Pertaining to the arguments advanced by the learned
counsels, it is trite to mention that at the stage of framing of
charge or considering an application for discharge, this Court
is not expected to meticulously appreciate the evidence or
weigh its probative value. The test is whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The
Court must consider whether the material on record, if
unrebutted, would warrant the accused being put on trial.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in
the matter of P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs. State reported in
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 558, has held as under:
12. In P. Nallamal (Supra), it was contended before this
Court that an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the
1988 Act cannot be abetted by a non-public servant.
Further, that there is no provision in the 1988 Act
which provides punishment for abetment of offence
under section 13(1)(e) whereas it provides punishment
for abetment of some other offences under the 1988
Act. However, after discussing the history of Section
13 of the 1988 Act which was a substitute for some of
the provisions of Chapter-IX of IPC which deals with
offences by or relating to public servants, this Court
held that an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988
Act can be abetted by any other person. After reading
Section 107 of IPC and accepting suggestions of
Counsel, this Court gave illustrations that how even a
person who is not a public servant can abet the offence
CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 4 of 8
under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. The relevant
paragraphs are as follows:
“24. Shri Shanti Bhushan cited certain illustrations
which, according to us, would amplify the cases of
abetments fitting with each of the three clauses in
Section 107 of the Penal Code vis-a-vis Section
13(1)(e) of the PC Act. The first illustration cited is
this: If A, a close relative of the public servant tells
him of how other public servants have become
more wealthy by receiving bribes and A persuades
the public servant to do the same in order to
become rich and the public servant acts
accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot
be any doubt that A has abetted the offence by
instigation.
Next illustration is this:
Four persons including the public servant decide to
raise a bulk amount through bribery and the
remaining persons prompt the public servant to
keep such money in their names. If this is a proved
position then all the said persons are guilty of
abetment through conspiracy.
The last illustration is this:
If a public servant tells A, a close friend of his, that
he has acquired considerable wealth through
bribery but he cannot keep them as he has no
known source of income to account, he requests A
to keep the said wealth in A’s name, and A obliges
the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved
position A is guilty of abetment falling under the
“Thirdly” clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code.
25. Such illustrations are apt examples of how the
offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act can
be abetted by non-public servants. The only mode
of prosecuting such offender is through the trial
envisaged in the PC Act.”
(Emphasis Provided)
13. In other words, any person who persuades a public
servant to take bribes, decides to raise money through
CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 5 of 8
bribes along with a public servant and prompts such
public servant to keep the wealth with him/her or keeps
the amassed wealth of a public servant in his/her own
name is guilty of committing the offence of abetment
of offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. We
must also note that the 2018 Amendment to the 1988
Act has substituted Section 12 of 1988 Act and made
all offences under the 1988 Act abettable.
10. Having regard to the principles decided in the aforesaid
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred to by the
learned Standing Counsel for the State (Vigilance) and the
materials appearing in the case record besides the reasons
assigned by the learned trial court, there is no material before
this Court apparently to show that the Petitioner would in any
manner be resolved of the allegations of acquisition of
properties which are not out of the known source of income of
her husband. The Petitioner’s contention that she, being a
housewife, cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act unless specific acts of
conspiracy or abetment are alleged against her, is noted.
However, the charge-sheet alleges that properties standing in
her name formed part of the disproportionate assets of the
principal accused. It is settled law, as reaffirmed in P. Shanthi
Pugazhenthi vs. State (Supra), that the mere status of a
housewife is not, by itself, sufficient to absolve an accused
where prima facie material exists that properties were
acquired in her name from ill-gotten wealth of a public
CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 6 of 8
servant. While the Petitioner has stressed upon the fiduciary
relationship with her husband and her dependence upon his
instructions, the same cannot, at this stage, be accepted as a
ground to discharge her without the opportunity for the
prosecution to establish the source of funds and the true
ownership and acquisition of the assets. These are matters
which squarely fall within the realm of evidence to be led
during trial.
11. As far as the ground that the acquisition of property by
her through her father, is absolutely a matter within the
adjudication of dispute, wherein the Petitioner would get
sufficient opportunity to prove her case. The ground
propounded by the Petitioner being one of defence which
should get her out of the implication in the offences, cannot
prima facie be taken as no ground to make out a case
involving her in the offence to face the trial, and as such, this
Court finds no material in the impugned order to be illegal or
improper and, therefore, refrains from interfering with the
same. The learned trial court has considered the materials
placed before it, the grounds urged by the Petitioner, and the
applicable law. The trial court’s reasoning does not suffer
from perversity, illegality, or material irregularity. The
grounds raised by the Petitioner pertain to her defence, which
CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 7 of 8
can only be considered upon a full-fledged trial and not at the
stage of discharge.
12. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to substitute
its own view for that of the trial court unless the impugned
order reflects glaring illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness
materially affecting the rights of the accused.
Accordingly, the CRLREV stands dismissed.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
The 30th day of June, 2025
S.K. Parida, ADR-cum-APS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SAMIR KUMAR PARIDA
Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Reason: Authentic Copy
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 01-Jul-2025 14:13:20
CRLREV No.449 of 2024 Page 8 of 8