SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 552

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
DR. SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI, J.
Kuntala Panda - Petitioners
Versus
Assistant Director (PMLA) Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Bhubaneswar - Opposite  Partys
CRLMC No.4449 of 2025
Decided On : 30-01-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Manas Mohapatra, Sr. Adv., along with associates
For the Opposite Partys : Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, CGC.

Judicial discretion under Section 205 Cr.P.C. must balance an accused's personal circumstances against case seriousness; exemption from appearance can be granted if sufficient cause is shown.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 205 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Exemption from personal appearance - The petitioner sought exemption citing age and medical conditions, which was rejected by the Special Judge - The Court found that sufficient cause was shown and the rejection did not consider the petitioner’s health adequately. (Paras 5, 12, 29)

(B) Judicial Discretion - The exercise of discretion under Section 205 Cr.P.C. must weigh the circumstances against the seriousness of the allegations - Seriousness of the allegations cannot solely bar exemption from personal appearance if sufficient cause is proven. (Paras 26, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, aged 72, sought exemption from personal appearance due to health issues; the initial application was rejected citing the serious nature of the offence and requirement for her physical presence at trial.

Findings of Court:
The Court set aside the Special Judge's order and allowed the exemption, subject to her representation by counsel and requirement to appear as directed.

Issues: The court addressed whether the denial of the exemption was justified given the petitioner’s age and health.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the exemptive discretion was improperly exercised by the Special Judge, emphasizing the need to balance circumstances against case seriousness, allowing for a reconsideration of personal attendance requirements.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments in favor of the petitioner. (Para 3)
3. arguments by the opposing party. (Para 4)
4. observations by the special judge regarding the application. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
5. court analysis of section 205 of cr.p.c. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
6. principles established by supreme court for discretion under section 205. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
7. application of principles to the present case. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
8. reiteration of the need for balancing seriousness with discretion. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
9. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)

Judgment :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crl. Misc. (PMLA) Case No. 11 of 2024.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

i. An FIR was registered by Koraput Vigilance, being P.S. Case No. 11 of 2012, for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

ii. Pursuant thereto, Charge Sheet No. 15 of 2018 dated 27.07.2018 was submitted before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Jeypore, Koraput.

iii. Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate initiated proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, by registering ECIR No. ECIR/BBSZO/14/2020 dated 31.03.2020.

iv. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, before the learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, alleging commission of the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the said Act.

v. Upon filing of the complaint, the learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, took cognizance of the offence and issued summons in Form No. 1 to the accused persons, including the present petitioner, directing their appearance.

vi. In pursuance of the summons so issued, accused nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the learned Special Judge and furnished bonds under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on 11.12.2024.

vii. The petitioner, Smt. Kuntala Panda, who was arrayed as accused no. 3, filed an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, seeking exemption from personal appearance on the grounds of her advanced age, medical condition, and the distance between her place of residence and the court at Bhubaneswar, and undertook to appear before the court below as and when required.

viii. The learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, by order dated 27.01.2025, rejected the application filed under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and directed the petitioner to appear before the court on 12.03.2025.Subsequently, the date of appearance was fixed on 29.10.2025.

ix. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2025, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

i. The petitioner submitted that the order rejecting the application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, is illegal, arbitrary, and suffers from non-application of judicial mind, inasmuch as the old age and illness of the petitioner were not duly considered, and for the said reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

ii. It was submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding person who has cooperated with both the investigating authorities and has appeared before them as and when required, without any complaint.

iii. It was further submitted that Section 205

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top