Page 1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLREV NO.233 OF 2023

Ganeswar @ Ganesh Chandra

Mohapatra & Others

….

Petitioners

Mr. Debasish Samal, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha & Another

….

Opposite Parties

Mr. S.K. Nayak, AGA

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

Order No.

ORDER

02.09.2023

02.

1.

The matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement

(virtual/physical mode).

2.

Heard.

3.

Admit.

4.

On consent of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and

the learned Counsel for the State; the Revision is heard on merit.

5.

The petitioners, by filing this revision, has called in

question the legality and propriety of order dated 25.02.2023 passed

by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court (S.C./S.T.) Balasore

in Special Case No.21/48 of 2022.

By the said order, the Trial Court has rejected the

application under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. filed by these

Petitioners (accused persons) in refusing to discharge the

Petitioners (accused persons). The Trial Court has held that the

materials on record raise the presumption of commission of offence

under

section

341/323/294/506/109,

I.P.C.

and

section

3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989 by these

// 2 //

Page 2 of 3

Petitioners (accused persons) so as to stand charged for those

offence and face the trial.

6.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners (accused persons)

inviting the attention of this Court to the statements of the witnesses

as well as the F.I.R. averments contends that, the case as placed by

the prosecution in arraigning these Petitioners as the accused

persons for commission of principal offences and with the aid of

109 of the IPC is not made out. He further submits that the

statements of the witnesses even if taken on their face value are not

enough to charge these Petitioners (accused persons) for the above

offences.

7.

Learned counsel for the State submits all in favour of the

order impugned in this Revision. According to him, all these aspects

which have been highlighted by the learned counsel for the

Petitioners (accused persons) concern with the factual settings of

the case and those would stand for being addressed during

weighment of the evidence in the trial but not at this stage of

consideration of framing of the charge.

8.

Keeping in view the submissions made, the impugned order

being perused, it is seen that the Trial Court being alive to the

settled position of law as to the considerations to be made for the

purpose of framing of charge has looked into the statements of the

witnesses in saying that prima facie presumption as to commission

of offence by these Petitioners get raised through those. Therefore,

when all the contentions raised by the Petitioners for their discharge

touch upon the assessment of the materials on record as to whether

those are believable/acceptable or not, at this stage of framing of

charge, the Trial Court is found to have committed no such

illegality or impropriety in repelling the move for discharge of these

Petitioners (accused persons).

// 3 //

Page 3 of 3

9.

Accordingly, the Revision stands dismissed. It is however

observed that if the Petitioners (accused persons) raise all such

contentions in the Trial, those would be considered in their proper

prospective and in accordance with law.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(D. Dash)

Judge

Himansu

Digitally Signed

Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH

Reason: Authentication

Location: OHC

Date: 05-Sep-2023 18:03:55

Signature Not Verified