STATE OF ORISSA Vs. NALINIKANTA MUDULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The State of Orissa questions legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court disposing of three petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). The petitions were filed, inter alia, - (1) to quash the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer (Vigilance Cell), Bhubaneshwar, (2) to quash the order dated 9-12-2002 taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC); and (3) to quash the order passed rejecting the prayer in terms of Section 205 of the Code and rejecting the prayer to recall the order directing issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest. It is to be noted that Vigilance G.R. Case No. 17 of 2001 was at the relevant point of time pending in the Court of Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. The starting point of litigation was drawing up of first information report on 29-5-2001 by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Unit Office, Bhubaneswar. Though several Government officials were charged for commission of offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act), according to the accused the Investigating Officer did not find sufficient evidence to bring home charge of complicity of the Government officials and charge-sheet was filed only so far as the present accused-respondent is concerned. As cognizance was taken and the prayer to dispense with personal appearance and recall of the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued were rejected petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court. A separate petition under Section 482 of the Code was filed taking the stand that the concerned Investigating Officer had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter and, therefore, the proceedings before the trial Court were vitiated being without jurisdiction. The High Court considered the last described petition as the pivotal one and took others to be consequential. By the impugned judgment the High Court held that investigation was unauthorized and, therefore, the proceedings were vitiated. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Patna High Court in J.A.C. Saldanha vs. Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna and others (1979 ILR (Patna) 459). Accordingly, proceedings were quashed. High Court did not think it necessary to deal with the other petitions separately.

(3.) In support of the Appeal learned counsel for the State submitted that the High Courts approach was clearly erroneous. Reliance on the decision of the Patna High Court, referred above, was really of no consequence as the judgment in question has been set aside by this Court in State of Bihar and another vs. J.A.C. Saldanha and others etc. (1980) 1 SCC 554.