At the stage of framing charges, a court only examines whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused, without evaluating the evidence's probative value.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. The legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack in T.R. Case No.48 of 2012 has been called in question in this Revision.

2. The background facts of the case, in brief, are that the Petitioner, a public servant, is alleged to have misused his official position and fraudulently drawn an amount of Rs 1,10,000/- from the GPF account standing in the name of one Krushna Chandra Barik by preparing forged records and misappropriating the said amount. It is further alleged that accused Nabakishore Das submitted a

proposal for sanction of GPF in favour of Krushna Chandra Barik, which was approved by Ananta Kumar Behera. Pursuant thereto, Nabakishore Das prepared the bill, and after drawal from the District Treasury, the amount was reflected in the Cash Book as having been paid to Krushna Chandra Barik in cash, in violation of the prevalent government orders, by Shri B. K. Parida.

On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, a case was registered under Section 13 (2) read with (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409 /468/471/120- B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, including against the present Petitioner. The Petitioner thereafter approached the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, seeking discharge from the offences alleged. The learned trial court, upon hearing both sides, declined to allow the prayer for discharge. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has approached this Court in revision.

3. Ms. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner appearing on behalf of Mr. G. P. Mishra, learned Advocate, argued in support of the contentions raised in the application and submitted, inter alia, that there is no expert opinion conclusively establishing that the signatures appearing on the documents in question were appended by the Petitioner. It is contended that the handwriting expert has not given a definite report linking the Petitioner with the disputed signatures. She placed reliance on the expert opinion, which states that

“for want of sufficient basis, it is not possible to express any definite opinion as to whether the person who wrote the red- enclosed specimen and admitted writings stamped and marked as identified vide S-1 to S-36 and A-1 to A-3 wrote the red-enclosed disputed signature.”

Ms. Mohanty further submitted that there has been an inordinate delay in initiating and conducting the prosecution. Considering that the Petitioner has since retired from service and is of advanced age, continuation of the criminal proceeding against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

4. 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 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