SAROJ KUMAR MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 16.8.2004 passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 71 of 1997 is assailed in this Criminal Revision. By the said order, the petition filed by the Petitioner to discharge was rejected.

(2.) The Petitioner was working as an Inspector in O.M.V.D. On 13.8.1986 the house of the Petitioner was searched on the strength of a search warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack and an inventory was made in respect of the house-hold articles and other movables found during the search. After conducting the investigation, an F.I.R. was lodged alleging that the Petitioner being a public servant has acquired assets disproportionate to the known sources of income to the tune of Rs. 1,16,404.40 and a case under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Considering the materials available in the case diary, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988 was taken. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure praying for discharge. Learned Special Judge after discussing the materials available on record, by the impugned order dated 16.8.2004 came to the conclusion that perusal of the police papers like F.I.R., details of the income-expenditure, assets statement, statement of witnesses, sanction order and other documents reveal sufficient materials to presume that the accused was guilty, consequently the petition praying for discharge was rejected.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner assails the said order mainly on the ground that the allegations levelled are mischievously false and that sufficient materials are there with the Petitioner to reveal that his income is much more than what has been assessed by the Vigilance Department. It is submitted that as the learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the said facts and did not take into consideration the materials produced by the Petitioner, it is a fit case where the order refusing to discharge the Petitioner needs to be interfered with.