LAWS(ORI)-2002-5-25

PURNA CHANDRA MISRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On May 17, 2002
PURNA CHANDRA MISRA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these Criminal Misc. Cases the petitioner who is an accused in T. R. Case No. 41 of 1992, T.R. Case No. 132 of 1999, T.R. Case No. 133 of 1999, T. R. Case No. 134 of 1999 and T. R. Case No. 135 of 2000 has challenged the order dated 26.8.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar framing charge against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477 A, I.P.C. All the Criminal Misc. Cases are taken up together and heard analogously as they arise out of a common order passed in the aforementioned Trial Cases arising out of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 42 of 1987 and the contention raised are also same.

(2.) THE facts of the cases giving rise to these petitions may be stated as follows : The petitioner was serving as a Primary School Teacher and was attached to the S.I. of Schools, Baramba East Circle within Baramba Block from 18.8.1970 to assist him in preparing bills, maintaining acquittance rolls and to deposit the amount of Provident Funds of the teachers. It is alleged that during his incumbency as the attached teacher of the office of the S.I. he prepared false and fictitious bills and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 18,723.30 by forging the signatures of the payees concerned. He also committed double drawal in the name of fictitious persons. All these transactions were detected during the normal audit in the year 1979 80. On further audit it was detected that he misappropriated Rs. 41, 974.98 during the period 1971 81. It is alleged that in total he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 60,698.28 during the year 1972 73 to 1980 81. On the basis of the audit report an explanation was called for from the concerned S.I., of Schools and this petitioner deposited the entire amount in four instalments vide money receipts dated 3.8.80, 10.12.80, 10.2.81 and 27.2.81 before submission of any explanation. After the detection was made, the petitioner was put under suspension with effect from 22.4.86 and was subsequently reinstated pursuant to the order dated 22.12.88 passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 2881 of 1988. The petitioner thereafter continued in his service till his retirement on superannuation on 5.1.93. On the basis of the detection made, F.I.R. was lodged on 27.11.87 and Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 42 of 1987 was registered for the offence under Sections 409, 468, 471, 477 A, of the I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In the vigilance case registered against the petitioner charge sheet was submitted on 31.3.91 on completion of investigation for the alleged offences under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under Sections 409, 468, 471, 477A, I.P.C. After receiving the charge sheet, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar split up the cases into five cases keeping in view the provisions of Section 219, Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge after hearing both the sides and on perusal of the police papers charged the petitioner for the above offences. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Special Judge, the petitioner has filed the Criminal Misc. Cases to quash the same.

(3.) THE second contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner is that since it is alleged that the money was misappropriated during the year 1972 to 1981, the F.I.R. was lodged on 27.11.87, charge sheet was, submitted on 31.3.91 and the petitioner has retired from service in the meantime, the continuance of the proceedings against him amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner was discharging a public duty and was receiving payment for the same during his incumbency as an attached teacher to the office of the S.I. of Schools. The irregularities and the misappropriation committed by the petitioner was detected during the normal audit held in the year 1979 80. After the detection was made further audit was conducted and the concerned S.I. of Schools was asked to submit his explanation for the irregularities. Before submission of any explanation this petitioner deposited the defalcated amount in four instalments. The F.I.R. was lodged thereafter on 27.11.87 and the case was registered. On the completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 31.3.91. It appears that the time taken to complete the investigation and to submit charge sheet is little more than three years. The offences alleged being serious in nature having great impact on the society, the delay of little more than three years in submission of charge sheet cannot be a ground to quash the proceeding. It may also be mentioned here that no period is fixed by the legislature for taking cognizance of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The offences alleged are also punishable with imprisonment for seven years. Therefore on the ground of delay in filing charge sheet or taking cognizance in then instant case the proceeding cannot be quashed. Accordingly the Criminal Misc. Cases are dismissed.