BAHLAB CHARAN SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. has been filed against the order dated 30.4.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in V.G.R. No.7 of 2009 dismissing the protest petition.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is the informant and is working as a Junior Assistant in Puri Konark Development Authority had applied for sanction of E.L. for 140 days and the said file was pending with Shri Prasant Kumar Pattnaik, who was the Planning Member and Secretary of P.K.D.A. The leave application of the petitioner having not been sanctioned, he approached Shri P.K. Pattnaik for sanction of leave and it is alleged that there was a demand for payment of Rs. 30,000/- from out of the leave salary. The petitioner promised to pay the amount after receipt of the leave salary and accordingly the same was sanctioned on 24.11.2008. However, at the time of approving the draft sanction letter, Shri Pattnaik demanded Rs.5,000/- to issue the letter and when the petitioner expressed his unwillingness to pay, Shri Pattnaik did not issue the letter. Finding no way, the petitioner again approached Shri Pattnaik and the demand was reduced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner under compulsion paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- to Shri Pattnaik as bribe on 17.3.2009 and reported the matter to the S.P., Vigilance, Bhubaneswar. On the strength of the said information, Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.7 dated 16.3.2009 was registered for commission of offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a trap was laid. After investigation, the Vigilance Department did not find sufficient evidence to submit a charge-sheet and accordingly Final Form was submitted on 14.12.2009 after obtaining necessary orders from the S.P., Vigilance. After receipt of the Final Form, the Court issued notice to the petitioner (informant) to file protest petition. After receipt of notice, the petitioner filed a protest petition and the said protest petition having been rejected in the impugned order, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.

(3.) Shri Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the order (sic) on two grounds: