HABIBULLAH KHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 20-9-1999 of the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar framing charge against the petitioner in T.R. No. 3 of the 1991 is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition (O.J.C. No. 12753/99) and in the petition filed under Sec. 482, Cr. P.C. (Cr1. Misc. Case No. 5021 of 1999). Both the cases being analogous, they were heard together with the consent of the counsel for parties and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 62 of 1990 was instituted in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack against the petitioner on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Vigilance, Special Squad, Cuttack dated 29-9-1990 alleging that he during the period frOm June. 1980 to December, 1989 being a public servant functioning as Minister in the State of Orissa acquired and had been in possession of assets of more Than Rs. 14 lakhs which were disproportionate to his known source of income and. as such committed an offence punishable under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation, the Vigilance police filed charge-sheet in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack on 26-3-1991 to the effect that he was in possession of assets to the tune of Rs. 13,62,802,89 disproportionate to his known source of income. Subsequently the records were submitted to the Court of the Special Judge. Bhubaneswar who by order dated 27-3-1991 took cognizance and issued summons:

(3.) According to the petitioner, while submitting charge-sheet. the Investigating Officer took his agricultural income at Rs. 1,98,000/- deliberately suppressing and ignoring material document like paddy sale khata, statement of witnesses. namely. K.S. Prakash Rao, A. Jagadish Rao, Chandra Sekhar Pattanaik, R.S. Pattanaik, Smya Narayan, Damodar Sethia and Kalimulla Khan who were examined during the course of investigation and not examining many material witnesses. When the matter was pending consideration of framing charge. the prosecution filed application on 24-7-1998 seeking permission for re-investigation in terms of Sec. 173(8). Cr. P.C. in the Court of the Special Judge. By order dated 11-8-1998 the learned Special Judge allowed the application and permitted re-investigation. In course of re-investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the Tahasildar, Nowrangpur, Revenue Inspector, Nowrangpur Tahsil and some rice mill owners including K.V.N. Rao. Mohammed Yunush. A. Rama Rao. K. Chandra Sekhar Rao and the Secretary of the Regulated Market Committee. He also seized the paddy sale khata from the residence of the petitioner. After completing investigation he submitted final report stating therein that there is no material to prove the charge of acquisition of disproportionate asset by the petitioner during the period in question. In the aforesaid final report the Investigating Officer has stated as follows: During scrutiny of the case diaries it is found that the previous Investigating Officer (1.0.) of this case mentioned that he verified from the office of RMC. Nowrangpur and ascertained that Shri Habibullah Khan has never pledged paddy to RMC. Nowrangpur. On the face of the information furnished by the Secretary R.M.C. Nowrangpur it is proved that the previous 1.0. had deliberately written false things in the records. From the scrutiny of the record it is found that one paddy sale note book was seized from Taragaon house of Sri Habibullah Khan wherein detail particulars of sale proceeds of paddy twice in every year is incorporated in it. Shri Khan has mentioned in this Note Book about sale of paddy during 1980 to 1990 amounting to Rs. 13,15.000/-. The Investigating Officer inter alia further opined as follows: