IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

AFR

CRLREV No.611 of 2024

Upendra Sethi & others …. Petitioners

Mr. S.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate

Mr. J. Pradhan, Advocate

-

-Versus

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC

AND

CRLREV No.620 of 2024

Manas Ranjan Sahu & others …. Petitioners

Mr. S.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate

Mr. J. Pradhan, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC

CORAM:

JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

DATE OF HEARING: 14.08.2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18.11.2025

1. The revisions have been clubbed together as both relate to

a common incident.

2. Instant revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners assailing the impugned orders dated 22^nd May,

2024 passed in connection with G.R. Case No.1258 and 1257 of 2001 (corresponding to Puri Town PS Case Nos. 223 and 222 dated 16^th October, 2001 respectively) by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri, whereby, the applications moved by them demanding their discharge in terms of Section 239 Cr.P.C. were rejected on the grounds stated.

3. The petitioners are facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323,294, 448, 426, 427 and Section 149 I.P.C combinedly before the learned court below after the F.I.Rs. were lodged with regard to an incident dated 16^th October, 2001 alleging therein by the informants that in the afternoon at around 2-3 P.M., some members of the reserve police arrived in plain clothes, entered inside the Lawyers and Clerks Association Hall and committed the overt acts described therein including damaging furnitures etc. and took away cash with them.

4. The copies of the F.I.Rs. are at Annexure-1 (in both the cases). After closure of investigation, the local police submitted separate chargesheets as per Annexure-2 against the petitioners. At the time of framing of charge, the petitioners claimed discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for want of sanction, they being the Government Servants and also on such other grounds but the said request as per Annexure-3 were declined leading to the passing of the impugned orders i.e. Annexure-4.

5. According to the petitioners, the decision of the learned Court below is erroneous and hence, liable to be set aside, more so when, there is no admissible evidence on record to so as to prove their involvement, inasmuch as, no T.I. Parade was conducted to identify the persons responsible for the alleged mischief. It is pleaded that the prior sanction was necessary to prosecute the petitioners but the same was obtained, as the learned court below did not consider the said aspect while taking cognizance of the offences and finally rejected the applications filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C., hence, the impugned orders as at Annexure-4 deserve to be interfered with and set aside followed by their discharge forthwith.

6. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

7. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that the learned Court below ought to have considered sanction necessary under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the petitioners being members of the APR Force and the alleged mischief purportedly to have been committed, while discharging their official duties but it has been lost sight of by the learned Court below and that apart, no T.I. Parade was conducted to identify the men responsible for the mischief, as no one has been named in the F.I.Rs. It is further submitted that in absence of any such materials to connect the petitioners’ demand for discharge was ignored on the premise that the cognizance of the offences has already been taken in the year, 2001. The contention is that all such plea was allowed to be raised at the appropriate stage obviously at the time of framing of charge in view of the Court’s orders dated 24^th March, 2023 in CRLMC Nos.2064 and 2065 of 2010, hence, the learned Court below should have considered discharge of the petitioners in absence of proper identification with admissible evidence and prior sanction.

8. Mr. Sahoo, learned