Odisha Rs 500 cr chopper bill: Was there any case on Naveen Patnaik, VK Pandian?

A court, while dismissing the petition over insufficient evidence, did not hold that the alleged expenditure had been proven to be legitimate or that the helicopter trips didn't happenA criminal complaint alleging that former Odisha chief minister Naveen Patnaik and his then principal secretary V.K. Pandian incurred more than Rs 500 crore in public expenditure through around 300 helicopter trips across the state has failed to clear the first legal hurdle, with the Khurda district and sessions court finding no prima facie material to substantiate the allegations.The court on September 2 dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by advocate and social worker Sudhir Charan Mohanty, upholding the March 25 order of the sub-divisional judicial magistrate (SDJM) of Bhubaneswar, which had rejected Mohanty’s complaint against Patnaik and Pandian.In a 14-page order, district and sessions judge Biranchi Narayan Mohanty said the complainant had not produced “a single scrap of paper or information” purportedly collected through RTI by his witnesses to establish, even prima facie, that a cognisable offence had been committed or that Patnaik and Pandian were involved in it.The ruling is significant because the allegation was not merely about the use of helicopters for political or public programmes. Mohanty’s complaint alleged that the trips were undertaken without government sanction during the years when Patnaik was Odisha chief minister, and that the expenses were borne by mining owners, land mafia, contractors and other private sources. The court, however, did not hold that the alleged expenditure had been proven to be legitimate or that the helicopter trips did not take place. Rather, it found that the material placed before the court was insufficient to establish a cognisable criminal offence against the two former office-holders at the stage when the complaint sought to set the criminal process in motion.Mohanty had alleged that Patnaik and Pandian travelled to different parts of Odisha in helicopters and attended public meetings, with the expenditure allegedly running into more than Rs 500 crore. According to the court order, the complainant claimed that information about the alleged misuse or misappropriation of public funds had been obtained through RTI by social activists, who were cited as witnesses.The order reproduces the key allegation from the complaint. Mohanty claimed that the accused had visited “all districts” in around “300 helicopter trips” without sanction of money from the government exchequer, and alleged that the expenses were met by mining owners, land mafia, non-Odia contractors and black money from different sources.Sudhir Charan Mohanty’s first FIR, dated August 14, 2024, similarly questioned who had borne the cost if there was no government sanction, alleging that mining owners, land mafia and non-Odia contractors had paid for the expenses.But the sessions court found a crucial gap: none of the RTI material or other information that was allegedly the basis of the complaint had been placed on record. “The complainant/petitioner did not file a single scrap of paper or information, which he had collected from his witnesses,” the judge observed, adding that there was consequently no prima facie material regarding commission of a cognisable offence, “and more precisely” the offences alleged against Patnaik and Pandian.The revision failed on another ground: the court held that Sudhir Charan Mohanty had not complied with the mandatory procedure under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before approaching the magistrate.Mohanty claimed that after the police refused to register his FIR on August 19, 2024, he submitted it to the DCP, Bhubaneswar. But the court found that the document submitted to the DCP was only a “very cryptic” report and did not contain the substance of the original FIR. It also noted that the report had not been sent to the DCP by post as required under Section 173(4) of BNSS, and that its receipt at the DCP’s office could not be authenticated.The court also pointed to inconsistencies between the first FIR, the subsequent report to the DCP and the complaint. The August 19 report, it noted, introduced allegations including massive conversion of black money into white, violation of government norms, and acceptance of bribes from mining owners and companies to allegedly favour them.There was a further legal obstacle. The court said Section 33 of the BNSS allows a member of the public to report certain offences, but the offences alleged by Mohanty in this case did not fall within the categories covered by that provision. “None of the sections alleged in the complaint case comes within the purview of Section 33 of BNSS, 2023,” the court said.Ultimately, the judge concluded that the petitioner had neither established the alleged offences with supporting material nor complied with Section 173(4) nor established the requisite locus under Section 33 of BNSS.“Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the complaint/petitioner neither made out any case under any of the penal sections referred to in the complaint petition with supported materials nor adhered to the mandatory compliance of Section 173(4) of BNSS, 2023 before presenting the complaint nor he had got any locus standi to present the complaint in terms of Section 33 of BNSS, 2023.”The revision petition was consequently dismissed. The order was pronounced in open court on September 2.In essence, the court’s finding was not that the Rs 500 crore allegation had been investigated and disproved. It was that the complainant had failed to put sufficient evidence before the court to establish a prima facie cognisable offence and had also failed to follow the statutory route required before filing the complaint.Subscribe to India Today Magazine- EndsPublished By: Shyam BalasubramanianPublished On: Sep 3, 2026 20:26 IST