SAROJ KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this application under S. 402, Cr. P.C. has prayed for quashing the FIR No. 61 of 2000 corresponding to Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 61 of 2000 registered against him and some others for commission of the offences under Sections 120-B/420/468/471, IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner is the Secretary-cum-Managing Trustee of Nabapravat Trust which is a Charitable Trust created under the Indian Trust Act having its registered office at Bhubaneswar. The trust in order to achieve its objectives established a Technical Educational Institution in the year 1997 in the name and style of C.V. Raman School of Engineering which was subsequently renamed as Nilachal Polytechnic at Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar with due permission from the appropriate authorities. This institution imparts technical education in various branches of Engineering. The Trust subsequently established another technical institution in the year 1999 in the name and style of Nilachal Institute of Computer Science (for short, 'NICS') for imparting education in Computer Science. This institution also runs in the same premises at Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. From the date of establishment of both the institutions, the students were admitted as per guidelines of the State Government and All India Council for Technical Education (for short, 'AICTE) and necessary education and training were imparted. The petitioner who is a qualified Civil Engineer was serving as the Principal of Nilachal Polytechnic and was also looking after the affairs of the other institution viz. NICS. In April, 2000, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 25 of 2000 was registered for the offence alleged to have been committed under the Act against one Bichitrananda Muduli who was working as the Chief Engineer, Rural Works at the relevant time. The said case was also registered against the son of the aforesaid public servant viz. Nalinikant Muduli who was the Managing Trustee of Nabapravat Trust. Another Vigilance case vide Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 43 of 2000 was also registered against the aforesaid two persons for offences alleged to have been committed under certain provisions of the Penal Code as well as the P.C. Act. In connection with the aforesaid two cases a raid was conducted in the premises of the Trust as well as the institutions running under the said Trust. The premises where two technical institutions are functioning had been taken on hire by the Trust from M/s. Zerina Marine (P) Ltd. which is a Private Limited Company belonging to the aforesaid Nalinikant Muduli, who is the son of the public servant against whom two Vigilance Cases have been registered. The premises previously belonged to one M/s. Utkal Ceramics. The said unit had been financed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation (for short, 'OSFC') and as it could not pay the loan dues to the CSFC, it was taken over in exercise of power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and pursuant to a sale notice the same was purchased by M/s. Zerina Marine (P) Ltd. who in turn allowed the Trust to use the premises for running two institutions on hire. However, after conducting raid in the premises, the Vigilance Department instituted the present case. In this case, prosecution allegations are that a conspiracy was hatched between the Branch Manager of CSFC, Branch-I, Bhubaneswar and other accused persons and pursuant to such conspiracy, industrial assets consisting of land more than 1/2 acre , two IDCO sheds earlier belonging to M/s. Utkal Ceramics had been handed over to accused Nalinikant Muduli in undue haste on 7-7-1997 for sale price of Rs. 20,00,000.00 which is considered to be lower than the market rate and that too with down payment of only Rs. 5,00,000.00. As per prosecution allegation one of the essential conditions of sale was that in case of diversification of products buyer has to take written approval from the lending institution failing which it has to continue with the same product as earlier occupant was producing. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the said Nalinikant Muduli declared himself to be a Civil Engineer and prepared a project report for setting up a fabrication unit at Bhubaneswar on behalf of M/s. Zerina Marine (P) Ltd. and impersonating himself as an Engineer could obtain transfer of title of lands and sheds from IDCO. It is also alleged that the said Nalinikant Muduli along with the present petitioner under the name of Nabapravat Trust established both the institutions where the present petitioner continued as Principal.

(3.) Sri H. S. Misra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner challenged the initiation of the proceeding on the ground that the petitioner was only working as Principal of both the technical institutions and had nothing to do with transfer of assets from the OSFC to M/s Zerina Marina (P) Ltd. and even if the entire prosecution case is accepted, no offence is made out so far as the present petitioner is concerned, Sri D. K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for Vigilance Department on the other hand, submitted that there was a conspiracy between accused Nalinikant Muduli, present petitioner and officials of the OSPC resulting in transfer of assets which had been taken ever by the OSFC in exercise of power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and pursuant to such conspiracy, transfer of assets having been made the petitioner is liable for the alleged offences.