PRAHALLAD KAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER calls in question the criminal proceeding in G. R. Case No. 29 of 1994(V) in the court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and prays for quashing the same, the proceeding being illegal and beyond the prescribed period of limitation as prescribed under the Orissa Pension Rules.

(2.) THE short facts of the petitioner's case is that he was serving in the cadre of O. A. S.(I), Senior Branch and retired from Government service on 31 7 1997. While in service the house of the petitioner was searched by the Vigilance Squad on30 7 1994 on the strength of a search warrant issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur. In course of search, the Vigilance Squad seized all movable properties, documents, records and files along with cash. The Investigating Officer submitted the F. I. R. along with a statement showing the income, expenditure and assets of the petitioner for the period between 1963 September and 1994 July and intimated the dis proportionate assets acquired by the petitioner. A. G. R. Case No. 29 of 1994 under section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered and the charge sheet was submitted on 13 10 1998 against the petitioner under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption/Act (hereinafter, called as 'P.C. Act') for possessing disproportionate, assets. The cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned. Special Judge (Vigilance) on 11 2 1999.

(3.) RULE 7(2)(c) of the Orissa Pension Rules. 1992 may bequoted, hereunder: No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while theGovernment servant was in service, whether before hisretirement or during his re employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action Which arose or inrespect of an event which took place, more than four yearsbefore such institution.' An explanation has been appended to the rule and according to explanation (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemedto be instituted in case of the criminal proceeding on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer of which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made. It is the contention of the learned counsel that since the report of a police officer basing on which the Magistrate takes cognizance is the date for the purpose of determining the period of four years as provided under the aforesaid Pension Rules on the date the charge sheet was submitted i. e. on 13 10 1998, a period of more than four years had elapsed, no proceeding could have been instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to section 2(r) of the Cr. P. C. to contend that the police report means the report forwarded by the police officer to the Magistrate under sub section (2) of section 173. Section 173 speaks of report of police officer on completion of investigation Learned counsel therefore, submits that since judicial proceeding will be deemed to be instituted in case of a criminal proceeding like the present one on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer of which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made, such a judicial proceeding or criminal proceeding could not have been instituted in view of the bar contemplated under Rule 7(2)(c) of the Orissa Pension Rules.