RAMA NARAYAN SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the proceeding in T.R. Case No. 41 of 1988 pending disposal before the Additional Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. From the records it appears that the present Petitioner and one Xudhistir Mohapatra have been charge sheeted for offences alleged to have been committed under Section 5(2) read with Section 5( 1 )(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 477A and 471 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Against the order taking cognizance under the aforesaid provisions this application has been filed. It appears that cognizance was taken by order dated 5.1.1989.

(2.) SHRI Tripathy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, prays for quashing of the proceeding only on the ground of delay in disposal of the same. He has submitted that though the case was instituted in 1988 till today only one witness has been examined and the case is unnecessarily lingering at the instance of the prosecution. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on a decision of this Court reported in : 1985 (I) OLR 558 : Jogendra Mahanta v. State of Orissa. In the said case FIR was lodged on 29.8.1973 and the case was registered in the year 1978. Charge sheet was submitted in 1981 and charges were framed on 5.1.1982. As it appears from 'the judgment, after framing of charge on 5.1.1982 witnesses had not been examined and the application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before this Court for quashing the proceeding on the ground of inordinate delay. This Court relying upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in : AIR 1971 SC 1367 : Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam and two Ors. decisions of this Court reported in : 47 (1979) CLT 126 : P. Chiranjivi v. Principal M.K.C.G. Medical College and Anr. and : 52 (1981) CLT 473 : Harekrushna Mahatab v. Republic of India, set aside the charge. Reliance is also placed on the decision reported in : 47 (1979) CLT 126 (supra) which has been relied upon in the case of Jogendra Mahanta (supra). Shri Tripathy relying upon the aforesaid two decisions submitted that here is a case where proceeding was initiated in the year 1988 and cognizance was taken on 5.1.1989. It is further submitted that after framing of charge though a decade has passed, only one witness, namely, R.C. Jena has been examined till date.

(3.) CONSIDERING the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceeding in exercise of inherent power. I am fully satisfied that further continuance of the proceeding would be an undue harassment to the Petitioner and would not achieve any public purpose.