BALABHADRA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the Criminal Proceeding pending against the petitioner in G.R. Case No. 19 of 1991 (V) in the Court of the Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur.

(2.) The gist of the prosecution case as revealed from the FIR and also the final report, is that the petitioner was working as Sub Collector, Malkangiri, as such he was also acting as Chairman of the Regional Marketing Committee, Malkangiri. He had demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000.00 from Gurumurty Mohanty on 31-8-91 at about 11-20 a.m. while he was present in the official residence of Sub-Collector, Malkangiri to revalidate a cheque bearing No. 56104 for Rs. 15,000.00 which was issued by him on 10-7-1991 and dishonoured by Koraput Gramya Bank. While accepting illegal gratification, he was caught redhanded and the amount was recovered from the accused. It appears that since the petitioner had retired from service, therefore, there was no occasion for the prosecution to obtain sanction from the competent authority. On the basis of such report, a case was registered under S. 12(2) read with 13(1)(d) and S. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and cognizance was also taken on 27-9-93, after-words it was transferred to the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar on 31-8-93. Since the case could be decided by Special Judge, Sambalpur, therefore, the case was transferred from Bhubaneswar to Sambalpur on 6-8-94. Charges have been framed against the petitioner on 17-4-1995. P.Ws were summoned, but the trial of the case could not be resumed for the absence of the P.Ws. In the meanwhile, the case was transferred to Berhampur on 13-5-1998. The accused was released on bail on 4-3-99. On 2-4-99 an application was filed by the petitioner to ask the prosecution for adducing evidence. In the meanwhile, the petitioner without giving any opportunity to the Special Judge (Vigilance) to take up trial filed the present application for quashing the case on the ground of delay in disposal of the trial.

(3.) I find that the case could not be disposed of earlier since it had to be transmitted from one Court to other for want of jurisdiction. When it could have been disposed of by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, the petitioner has filed this case for quashing of the case. In this connection, a judgment of the Constitutional Bench in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1701, has been relied on. It has been stated in paragraphs 53 and 54 that :