Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Saroj Kumar Das – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against the lower court's order. (Para 3) |
| 3. court’s analysis regarding further investigation. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. ratio decidendi of the case. (Para 18) |
| 5. final conclusion and order of the court. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
1. In this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition the Petitioner/CBI seeks a direction from this Court to set aside the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the learned Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI-01), Bhubaneswar releasing the seized articles on zimanama and to direct that the mobile phones, laptop, gold items and documents remain in official custody pending completion of further investigation.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
(ii) The RC was registered on 03.08.2022 on source information alleging a bribery-conspiracy involving Saroj Kumar Das (CME, Paradip Port Authority) and others, under S. 120B IPC read with provisions of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended, 2018).
(iv) The CBI filed charge-sheet on 03.10.2022 against multiple accused (including the public servant and private individuals/company), and the case proceeded to cognizance.
II. PETITIONER’S
The court reaffirmed the principle that further investigation remains permissible post charge-sheet, emphasizing the discretion of courts regarding interim custody of seized property to prevent undue....
The court emphasized the necessity of proper documentation and handling of seized properties, particularly electronic items, to prevent loss of evidence and ensure justice.
Confiscation and release of vehicle – Decision regarding confiscation of any article can be taken only by Special Court and only after conviction, acquittal or discharge – There is no provision for p....
The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of seized property while ensuring the rights of the accused are protected, allowing the release of the mobile phone under specific conditions.
Seizure of property under the PMLA must lapse after 365 days without a related prosecution complaint; the 'pendency' of proceedings involves a direct connection to the property seized.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
