BASUDEB MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 561 -A, Code of Criminal Procedure asking for quashing the two charges framed against the Petitioner under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act 2 of 1947) by the learned Special Judge, Bbubaneswar.

(2.) THE Petitioner was the Divisional Forest Officer at Jeypore in the district of Koraput between 27 -4 -1964 and 8 -7 -1967. Large scale illicit felling of timber from Government forests took place during that period and the matter received some publicity. Shri S.K. Mohanty, Chief Conservator of Forests, held an enquiry and made a report to Government on 18 -12 -1967. Therein he indicated that the said report was an interim one and a fuller report would follow. On 9 -2 -1968, Shri D.N. Choudhury, Chief Conservator of Forests, sent another report to Government. Soon thereafter 80 vigilance case was registered vide Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 4 of 1968. It was alleged then that there was an unholy combination of the Government officials in the Forests and Revenue Departments with some forest contractors as a result whereof Government forests were being depleted of valuable timber on the pretext of tenants timber having been out and removed after following the usual procedure. After due investigation some officers of the Forest Department and some others of the Revenue Department and a host of forest contractors and their people were charge -sheeted. The Petitioner who was the Divisional Forest Officer during that period was also Rent up for trial and the learned Special Judge has on the basis of papers placed before him of investigation, framed two charges against him and another (the Range Officer of the Malkangiri Forest Range). They are as follows:

(3.) MR . Kanungo contends that the learned Special Judge went wrong in holding that the documents referred to in Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure justified the conclusion that there was ground for presuming that the Petitioner had committed the offence for which he was charge -sheeted. On the other hand, the material would clearly indicate that the charge is groundless. Therefore, the learned Special Judge should have discharged the Petitioner in terms of Sub -section (2) of Section 251 -A, Criminal Procedure Code.