MOHANTI,J. - (1.)RAJANIKANTA Meheta, the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Case No. 45 of 1976 as well as O. J. C. No. 58 of 1976, has been committed to the Court of Session to stand his trial for an offence under Section 395 read with Section 115, I.P.C. The trial is yet pending. The prayer in the Criminal Misc. Case as well as in the O. J. C. in substance is that this Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the extraordinary powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings.
(2.)THE petitioner is a partner of Bavchand and Co., a jewellery firm at Cuttack. The accusation against him is that he abetted the commission by his co -accused persons of an offence of dacoity which was not committed in consequence of the abetment. On a consideration of the materials collected by the police and after hearing the parties, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge by his order dated January 9, 1976 framed a charge under Section 395/115, I.P.C. against the petitioner and under Section 395, I.P.C. against his co -accused persons. At the time of consideration of the charge it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that no prima facie case had been made out against him for a charge under Section 395/115, I.P.C. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge repelled this contention and relying on the statement of the approver came to the finding that there are grounds for presuming that the petitioner had committed the offence under Section 395/115, I.P.C.
The approver's statement is to the effect that he along with accused Bigyan Malik approached the petitioner to arrange a jeep for going to Niali area for committing dacoity and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 300/ - for hiring a jeep for the purpose. The petitioner's contention is that since there is no possibility of conviction on the basis of the sole uncorroborated statement of the approver, the proceedings should be quashed. Reliance is placed on several decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it has been laid down that for conviction the courts should seek, as a rule of prudence, for corroboration of the evidence of the approver which must tend to connect the accused with the crime charged.

(3.)IT is contended on behalf of the State that the order framing a charge being an interlocutory order the High Court cannot, in exercise of its inherent powers or extraordinary powers, interfere with the same in view of the ban imposed by Section 397(2) Criminal Procedure Code Reliance is placed on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bhima Naik v. State, (1975) 41 Cut LT 674 : (1975 Cri LJ 1923).