A mere unintentional error in legal documents lacks the requisite mens rea for prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. unless deliberate misconduct is established.

JUDGMENT :

JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant revision petition under Section 442 BNSS is at the behest of the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 6^th June, 2025 passed in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No.3 of 2022 arising out of Criminal Revision No.4 of 2019 corresponding to 1.C.C. No.204 of 2017 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Puri, whereby, the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri declined to take action in terms of Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii) Cr.P.C. on the grounds inter alia that such decision is erroneous and illegal and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for initiation of criminal prosecution against the opposite parties with the allegation that there is deliberate manipulation vis-a-vis official guidelines of the Forest and Environment Department, Government of Odisha with regard to Prakruti Mitra Award, 2011-12 while challenging the order of cognizance in 1.C.C. No.204 of 2017 with the allegation that there has been such fraud committed in order to obtain a stay order in the revision. According to the petitioner, the opposite parties deliberately incorporated a non-existent clause in the guidelines for Prakruti Mitra Award, 2011-12 inconsistent with the guidelines issued by the State Government and it was to misguide the Court in seisin over the matter exercising the revisional jurisdiction against the order of cognizance dated 19^th January, 2019 in 1.C.C. No.204 of 2017 and thereby committed the offences alleged. The said application was disposed of by the learned Court below vide Annexure-1 and rejected the same, refusing to initiate any such criminal prosecution against the opposite parties on the premise that there is no any offence to have been committed and hence, Section 195 (1)(b)(i) and (ii) Cr.P.C. is not attracted for the fact that no such offence is alleged in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding pending before it. Being aggrieved of, the petitioner questioned the legality of the impugned order dated 6^th June, 2025 at Annexure-1 in the instant revision with the pleading on record that the relevant clause in the official guidelines was distorted and falsely represented before the learned Court below.

3. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite party No.1 in person. Notice to opposite party No.2 was dispensed with by its order dated 16^th October, 2023.

4. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order at Annexure-1 dismissing the application under Section 340 read with Section 195 (1)(b)(i) and (ii) Cr.P.C. is not tenable in law. It is contended that the learned court below failed to apply its judicial mind to the application and denied any such criminal prosecution against the opposite parties when on a bare perusal of the official guidelines with reference to the lower court record found to have been forged with the insertion of a clause, which never existed. It is further contended that there has been deliberate misrepresentation from the side of the opposite parties with respect to the guidelines for Prakruti Mitra Award, 2011-12 with a word omitted therefrom and as a result, misled the learned court below in the revision proceeding filed against the order of cognizance in 1.C.C. Case No.204 of 2017. The further contention is that no documents or any such official guidelines in support of the averments made in the revision filed before the learned Court below is available and especially with regard to a provision referred to as Clause 12(g) and hence, for