The Orissa High Court has stepped in to correct what it described as a “cryptic” exercise of judicial power by a trial court, setting aside an order that had taken cognizance of two criminal offences at the same time in a ₹70 lakh misappropriation case. The High Court directed the Magistrate to reconsider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order after applying proper judicial mind. Priyam Pratham Sabat
Background of the Case
The case arose from a revision petition filed by Priyam Pratham Sabat, who challenged an order dated 29 August 2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Digapahandi. The JMFC had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in connection with G.R. Case No. 287 of 2025, linked to Digapahandi Police Station Case No. 232 of 2025.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rejects Curative Pleas in Land Acquisition Case, Says No Grounds Within Limited Review Scope
According to the First Information Report (FIR), the allegations revolved around the misappropriation of nearly ₹70 lakh. The Magistrate, while considering the charge-sheet, proceeded to take cognizance of both offences simultaneously, which became the central issue before the High Court.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court had erred in law by taking cognizance of both offences together without examining whether their legal ingredients could coexist. Referring to recent Supreme Court rulings, the petitioner contended that offences relating to criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot automatically be applied together unless the factual foundation clearly supports both.
The State, represented by the Additional Standing Counsel, opposed the plea and supported the trial court’s order.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rejects Goregaon Pearl Society's Curative Pleas, Ends Long-Running Housing Dispute
Court’s Observations
After examining the FIR, the impugned order, and the legal position, the High Court found merit in the petitioner’s arguments. Justice R.K. Pattanaik noted that the trial court order lacked any discussion on how the essential elements of the two offences were satisfied.
“The order dated 29th August, 2025 appears to be a cryptic one,” the Court observed, adding that there was no proper evaluation of the charge-sheet or the materials on record.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that criminal breach of trust and cheating are distinct offences. While breach of trust may arise later during a transaction, cheating requires dishonest intention from the very beginning. Without a clear analysis, the Magistrate could not have mechanically taken cognizance of both.
The High Court further remarked that the absence of such analysis showed a lack of judicial application of mind, making the order legally unsustainable.
Read also:- Supreme Court Mandates Timelines for Oral Arguments, Issues SOP to Streamline Hearings and Cut Delays
The Decision
Setting aside the impugned order, the High Court directed the JMFC, Digapahandi, to reconsider the issue of cognizance afresh. The Magistrate has been instructed to pass a reasoned order after carefully examining the materials on record and keeping in view the settled legal position explained by higher courts.
With these directions, the criminal revision petition was allowed, and the earlier cognizance order was quashed. Priyam Pratham Sabat
Case Title: Priyam Pratham Sabat vs State of Odisha
Case No.: CRLREV No. 961 of 2025
Case Type: Criminal Revision
Decision Date: 15 December 2025
