BASANTA KUMAR GIRI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid Criminal Misc. Case has been filed challenging the order dated 22.11.1994 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur taking cognizance under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 467/471 and 109 of Indian Penal Code, as well as the order dated 8.3.1995 rejecting the application of the petitioner to drop the proceeding.

(2.) The criminal proceeding was initiated on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the Inspector of Vigilance dated 19.2.1990 on the following allegations. At the relevant time, the petitioner who is an O.A.S. Officer was working as Tahasildar, Kuchinda. An Encroachment Proceeding bearing No. 628 of 1982 was initiated against one Rahas Bihari Naik in respect of Ac. 7.08 decimals of land. During the pendency of the said proceeding the encroacher produced a document from the D.F.O., Ex-Bamara State dated 15.6.1941 indicating that permission had been granted in his favour as well as in favour of his brother for reclamation. Basing on the said document, the petitioner converted the encroachment case to a lease case and settled the land in favour of the encroacher. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner and the opposite party No. 3 in furtherance of their common intention admitted in evidence the forged reclamation permit produced by Ananda Bihari Naik and basing on it issued patta in favour of Rahas Bihari Naik.

(3.) After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and Ananda Bihari Naik and the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur took cognizance on 22.11.1994. The petitioner moved this Court in Criminal Misc Case No. 1548/94 and this Court disposed of the said case on 22.11.1994 giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file an application before the Special Judge (Vigilance) for reconsideration of the order taking cognizance. After disposal of the said application the petitioner filed a petition before the learned special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur praying therein to drop the proceeding on the ground that since there is a bar under Section 195(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code in filing the complaint the order taking cognizance is liable to be recalled and the proceeding is liable to be dropped.