Orissa High Court
Sitikanta Das Mohapatra & vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) on 2 July, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No. 71 of 2025
Sitikanta Das Mohapatra & .... Appellants
Others
Mr. S. Pattanaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vig.) .... Respondent
Mr. Sanjay Das, Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 02.07.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. The legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated
29.10.2024 passed in C.T.R. No.07 of 2022 by the learned Special
Judge (Vigilance) Sundargarh has been called in question in this
Revision.
2. The background facts of the case are that the Principal of
Koira Degree College, namely, Smt. Laxmi Ray, obtained 40%
Block Grant by misusing her official position and producing forged
documents by altering the date of her joining, thereby causing loss
to the government exchequer. The case record reveals that Koira
College was established in the year 1992 by a management
committee comprising the villagers of Koira. In 1993, approval was
granted by the competent authority for the functioning of +2 Arts
and Commerce streams, and in 1996, permission was accorded
under Section 57 of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. In 1994, the +3
Arts stream was introduced in the college. The enquiry reveals that
CRLREV No. 71 of 2025 Page 1 of 9
persons namely, Arun Kumar Das (Lecturer in History), Pankaj
Mohan Panigrahi (Lecturer in Political Science), Dhananjaya Sahoo
(Lecturer in Oriya), Sanghamitra Satpathy (Lecturer in Economics),
and Sebak Bandhu Nayak (Lecturer in Logic) were selected by the
Selection Committee and joined as lecturers on 16.07.1992. Smt.
Sanghamitra Satpathy was appointed as the Principal of the said
college. Subsequently, 21 more individuals were appointed as
lecturers. Vide Resolution No. 52 dated 31.03.2002, Koira College
and Koira Degree College were segregated with effect from
01.04.2002 in respect of administration, finance, staff, and
infrastructure. Separate Governing Bodies were constituted for the
+2 and +3 streams. Up to 31.03.2002, resolutions, records,
attendance registers, and acquaintance registers were maintained in
the +2 College for both streams.
Upon verification of records, including the gradation list of
lecturers and correspondence with the Commissioner, EPF Office,
Rourkela, the name of Smt. Laxmi Ray did not appear in any of the
relevant documents for the period from 1992 to 31.03.2002. From
01.04.2002 onwards, separate records were maintained for the
Junior College and the Degree College. Smt. Laxmi Ray joined as
Lecturer in Oriya on 16.10.2003, having been appointed by the
Governing Body, and was allotted Registration No. 37/03/04 by the
Registrar, Sambalpur University. In 2009, Government Notification
No. 732/HE dated 07.01.2009 was published, making institutions
established with Government recognition and university affiliation
before 01.06.1998 eligible for Block Grant. Teaching and non-
CRLREV No. 71 of 2025 Page 2 of 9
teaching staff appointed before that date were entitled to receive
Block Grant salary.
3. Since Smt. Laxmi Ray joined only on 16.10.2003, she was
not entitled to receive Block Grant salary. However, in order to
claim the benefit, she prepared forged documents–such as an
appointment letter, resolutions, acquaintance roll, and attendance
register with the assistance of Sri Sitikantha Das Mahapatra,
Lecturer, and Sri Paramananda Behera, Junior Clerk, among others.
These documents falsely showed her date of joining as 18.08.1995
and were used to recommend her name to the Higher Education
Department for inclusion under the Block Grant Scheme.
Smt. Ray was appointed Principal of Koira Degree College by the
Governing Body on 23.11.2012. She took charge of the original
college records (from 01.04.2002 onwards) from the then Principal
Sri Sambit Kumar Mohanty, but allegedly concealed or destroyed
the same. During inquiry, she produced forged documents, based on
which the Higher Education Department was moved for her
inclusion under the Block Grant Scheme by Sri Sitikantha Das
Mahapatra, as Member Secretary of the College, via letter No.
774/KC+3 dated 24.03.2009.
Based on this recommendation, Smt. Ray received a total
sum of ₹4,83,519.00 as Block Grant salary from 20.01.2009 to
October 2014, which she was not entitled to. This amount
constituted a loss to the Government. From the facts and
circumstances, it is established that Smt. Laxmi Ray, in connivance
with Sri Sitikantha Das Mahapatra and Sri Paramananda Behera,
CRLREV No. 71 of 2025 Page 3 of 9
prepared forged documents to secure Block Grant salary by
misrepresenting her date of joining. It is further alleged that Sri
Sitikantha Das Mahapatra and Sri Paramananda Behera abetted the
said forgery.
4. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that Sri
Sitikantha Das Mohapatra, Lecturer in Philosophy; Sri Pradeep
Kumar Pattnayak, Lecturer; Ms. Geet Rani Ray; Sri Manglu
Mahakud; and Smt. Laxmi Ray had affixed their signatures in the
forged acquaintance register, which was seized from the possession
of Smt. Laxmi Ray. The investigation further disclosed that these
individuals, with the intention of forging records to confer undue
benefit upon Smt. Ray, concealed original documents and prepared
forged ones. In these fabricated records, the date of joining of Smt.
Ray was shown as 18.08.1995, with the support of signatures from
Sri Sitikantha Das Mohapatra, Sri Pradeep Kumar Pattnayak, Sri
Sambit Kumar Mohanty (Lecturer), Sri Paramananda Behera
(Junior Clerk), Sri Manglu Mahakud (Peon), and Ms. Geeta Rani
Ray (Peon). Accordingly, a charge sheet was submitted against the
Petitioners and the other named individuals.
5. Subsequently, an application was filed by the Petitioners
under Section 239 of the CrPC before the learned trial court,
seeking discharge from the offences under Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and
Sections 409, 468, 477-A, and 120-B of the IPC. They contended
that they had joined as Lecturers in 1995 on different dates and had
no role in the preparation of the forged documents. Their principal
argument was that the entire responsibility lay with Smt. Laxmi
CRLREV No. 71 of 2025 Page 4 of 9
Ray, who was the sole beneficiary of the alleged forgery, and that
they had merely signed the attendance and acquaintance registers in
the ordinary course of their official duties as faculty members. It is
also the contention of the Petitioners that their specimen and
admitted signatures had been sent to the CEQD for forensic
comparison, but no definitive opinion was received, thereby casting
doubt on their alleged involvement. The Petitioners also asserted
that there was no material to suggest that they conspired with Smt.
Ray to cause wrongful gain or loss to the Government. According
to them, no evidence exists to show that they dishonestly or
fraudulently misappropriated any property, or that any such
property had been entrusted to them so as to attract the offence
under Section 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act. It was also argued that there
was no evidence of abuse of official position or pecuniary gain
attributable to them. The Petitioners contended that the materials on
record failed to establish any element of criminal breach of trust or
forgery on their part under Sections 409 and 468 of the IPC, and
therefore, the impugned order rejecting their discharge petition was
unsustainable.
6. Mr. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the Petitioners,
impressing upon the various documents submitted that the mere
signatures of the Petitioners in the attendance and other registers
cannot in itself be taken as material to enter into the conspiracy with
the Principal, so as to give her benefit.
7. Mr. Das, leaned Standing Counsel for the State-Vigilance,
on the contrary, submitted that the ground advanced by the learned
counsel for the Petitioners seeking discharge from the offences
CRLREV No. 71 of 2025 Page 5 of 9
could at best be taken as the ground for defence as apparently the
material available on record reveals that the Petitioners put their
signatures in the register knowing fully well that the beneficiary
never joined prior to 2003 but her named having been found in the
register they continue put their signatures thereby giving an
impression to their knowledge and misrepresenting themselves
before the authority that Smt. Laxmi Ray had joined during the
period 1995. As far as the opinion of the Handing Writing Expert is
concerned, the same could be evidence which need to be
controverted by the Petitioners during trial. The report ipso facto
does shoe the Petitioners to have not signed in the register.
Accordingly, learned counsel for the State submitted that the
impugned order is absolutely legal and justified and it being in
consonance with law, requires no interference.
8. From the perusal of the case diary and charge sheet, it
appears that the present Petitioners, namely Sri Sitikantha Das
Mahapatra, Lecturer in Philosophy, Sri Pradeep Kumar Pattanayak,
Lecturer in History, and Sri Sambit Kumar Mohanty, Lecturer in
English, were actively involved in the preparation and
authentication of the said forged records intended to falsely reflect
that Smt. Laxmi Ray had joined Koira Degree College on
18.08.1995, whereas in actuality she had joined much later on
16.10.2003. The investigation unearthed that in furtherance of a
criminal conspiracy, forged documents including appointment
letters, attendance registers, acquaintance rolls, and resolutions
were fabricated and submitted to the Higher Education Department
to secure monetary benefits under the Block Grant Scheme. The
CRLREV No. 71 of 2025 Page 6 of 9
Petitioners, being members of the faculty and staff of the College,
allegedly affixed their signatures in the manipulated records
knowingly, thereby aiding and abetting the act of forgery and
misrepresentation. The forged documents, which included the
acquaintance register and attendance records bearing the signatures
of the Petitioners, were found to have been seized from the
possession of Smt. Laxmi Ray. Their role in authenticating and
facilitating the use of these forged documents forms a crucial link in
the chain of events that led to the wrongful financial gain to Smt.
Laxmi Ray and consequent loss to the public exchequer.
Accordingly, the Petitioners have been charge-sheeted for offences
under Sections 409, 468, 477-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
9. Statements recorded during investigation reveal that Smt.
Laxmi Ray had actually joined Koira Degree College only on
16.10.2003, yet the Petitioners–Sri Sitikantha Das Mahapatra, Sri
Pradeep Kumar Pattanayak, and Sri Sambit Kumar Mohanty–are
alleged to have actively facilitated the fabrication of records to
falsely show her joining in 1995. Witnesses noted the sudden
appearance of her name in old attendance and acquaintance
registers, bearing the signatures of the Petitioners, who were in
service at the time. These signatures were allegedly made
knowingly to lend authenticity to the backdated entries and support
her eligibility under the Block Grant Scheme. Notably, a
recommendation letter forwarding her name, signed by Petitioner
Sitikantha Das Mahapatra, formed part of the official
CRLREV No. 71 of 2025 Page 7 of 9
communication. The seizure of forged documents from Smt. Ray,
combined with interpolations and missing original records, further
strengthens the prosecution case. The inconclusive handwriting
opinion does not override the cumulative circumstantial and
testimonial evidence implicating the Petitioners. Taken together, the
witness statements form a cogent body of material indicating that
the Petitioners were not mere signatories in routine course of duty,
but active participants in the conspiracy to forge official records and
cause wrongful gain to Smt. Ray at the cost of public funds.
10. The impugned order dated 29.10.2024, passed by the
learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sundargarh, rejecting the
Petitioners’ application under Section 239 CrPC, is based on a
considered assessment of the materials on record. The trial court
noted that the forged documents such as attendance registers,
acquaintance rolls, and resolutions contained the Petitioners’
signatures against fabricated entries falsely showing Smt. Laxmi
Ray’s date of joining as 18.08.1995. Given that the Petitioners were
in service during the relevant period, their consistent signatures in
these documents were viewed not as routine acts, but as a deliberate
endorsement of falsehood, lending credibility to the forged records.
The court also took note of the Petitioners’ role in forwarding the
recommendation for Block Grant inclusion, particularly the letter
signed by Petitioner Sitikanta Das Mahapatra, and found such
conduct indicative of complicity. The Petitioners’ reliance on the
inconclusive handwriting expert opinion was held insufficient to
warrant discharge, as such issues are to be tested during trial. The
court concluded that the arguments raised pertained to defence, and
CRLREV No. 71 of 2025 Page 8 of 9
at the stage of discharge, the existence of a prima facie case was
sufficient to proceed. Accordingly, the discharge application was
rejected as the materials disclosed grave suspicion justifying trial.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no
illegality, impropriety, or infirmity in the impugned order dated
29.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance),
Sundargarh in C.T.R. No.07 of 2022. The materials collected during
investigation, including forged documents bearing the signatures of
the Petitioners, corroborated by witness statements and official
correspondence, disclose sufficient grounds to presume the
involvement of the Petitioners in the alleged offences. The
arguments raised by the Petitioners touch upon their defence, which
can only be examined on the basis of evidence adduced at trial. At
the stage of considering discharge under Section 239 CrPC, it is
sufficient that the prosecution has placed materials giving rise to
grave suspicion against the accused.
12. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present
Revision. The CRLREV No. 71 of 2025 stands dismissed.
The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter
expeditiously in accordance with law, without being influenced by
any observations made herein.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
A.K.Pradhan
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
CRLREV No. 71 of 2025
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 03-Jul-2025 16:45:41
Page 9 of 9