Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA, J.
Rabindra Kumar Jena - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhubaneswar and another - Respondents
CRLMC No.2620 of 2025, CRLMC No.2177 of 2025
Decided on : 21-07-2025
For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Nayak, Special
Fairness of trial mandates cooperation with investigating agencies, even after filing charge-sheets, ensuring access to all relevant documents for the accused.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 41-A - Continuation of investigation after filing of charge-sheet - Notwithstanding the filing of the charge-sheet, the investigating agency retains the authority to issue notices for further cooperation, demanding presence for investigation. - Allegations of harassment by the CBI post cognizance were contested. - Fairness of the trial is emphasized as non-negotiable. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
(B) Right to fair trial - The accused is entitled to a list of documents collected but not relied on in the charge-sheet to ensure a just trial process. (Paras 18, 19, 21)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner contests the issuance of notices under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. alleging harassment post the filing of the charge-sheet in a financial scam case, emphasizing the need for fair treatment during investigation.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the investigating agency to provide a list of all documents to the Petitioner collected during the investigation but not referred to in the charge-sheet.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the criminal investigation can continue after the filing of the charge-sheet and if the Petitioner has the right to access all relevant documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the integrity of a fair trial must be upheld. Investigating agencies can issue notices post-charge-sheet as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of the accused.
Result: The interim protection continued, and both applications were scheduled for further hearings.
ORDER :
ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA, J.
CRLMC No.2177 of 2025
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. S. Nayak, learned Special Counsel for CBI.
3. Mr. Nayak, learned Special Counsel for CBI is directed to file a reply affidavit to the application filed by the Petitioner within two weeks after serving a copy thereof on learned counsel for the Petitioner.
CRLMC No.2620 of 2025
4. Heard Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. S. Nayak, learned Special Counsel for CBI.
5. The subject matter of the dispute in the present application arises out of the self-same dispute which is also the subject matter of dispute in another CRLMC application bearing CRLMC No.2177 of 2025 and is pending before this Court for final hearing. As such, the present matter be heard analogously with the connected matter.
6. Mr. Nayak, learned Special Counsel for CBI who is already appearing for the Opposite Parties in CRLMC No.2177 of 2025 accepts notice in the present case. Since the copy of the CRLMC application has already been served on Mr. Nayak, no extra copy of the application is require to be served.
I.A. No.1875 of 2025
7. This I.A. has been filed at the instance of the Petitioner with a prayer to stay the operation in respect of impugned notices dated 03.07.2025, 07.07.2025 and 14.07.2025 issued by the Opposite Parties under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., 1973 till disposal of the present application.
8. On the prayer of Mr. Nayak, learned Special Counsel for Opposite Party, he is granted two weeks’ time to file his objection to the I.A.
9. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Special Counsel for CBI, further keeping in view the nature of the dispute involved in the present application as well as keeping in view the orders passed in the connected CRLMC No.2177 of 2025, this Court at the outset would like to observe that the fairness of the trial which is the essence of any criminal trial is non-negotiable. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present application is that the investigating agency has issued several notices to the Petitioner under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. thereunder asking the Petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and produce certain information and documents in course of the investigation.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner on the other hand contended that although the case is of the year 2014 and in the meantime charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance of the offences has been taken by the learned trial Court, the Petitioner is being harassed by the investigating agency in the name of further investigation. He further submitted that notices purported to be one under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. are being issued to the Petitioner in the name of further investigation. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner alleged harassment at the hands of the investigating agency. Further, referring to some of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that after filing of the charge-sheet and after cognizance has been taken the investigation of the case has come to an end, so far the present Petitioner is concerned. However, with an oblique motive the investigating agency is repeatedly harassing the Petitioner by compelling the Petitioner to appear before the investigating agency at frequent intervals on various dates which is causing serious inconvenience to the Petitioner.
11. Mr. Nayak, learned Special Counsel for CBI on the other hand contended that initially the present criminal case was started pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that the present case is a part of the chit fund scam that had taken place in the State of Odisha involving misappropriation of huge public money. Moreover, in view of the successive orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex court, the investigation in the present case is s
