DANDAPANI PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 09.07.2012 - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pani, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department. Perused the case records The petitioners, in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pray for quashing of the order dated 09.08.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Berhampur in T.R. No.30 of 2004 arising out of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and directing for issuance of process against the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that nowhere in the impugned order, the learned Special Judge has said that on going through the records, he was satisfied prima facie about commission of the offences by the petitioners and therefore, the order of cognizance is bad as it suffers from complete non -application of mind by the learned Special Judge. In this connection, he places reliance on the decisions of this Court reported in (2003) 26 OCR 730; *2003 (Supp.) OLR (NOC) 9681 *Gundicha Behera and another v. State of Orissa and 2008 (II) OLR 85; Saroj Kumar Mahapatra v. State of Orissa. In the case of Gundicha Behera and another (supra), this Court quashed the order of cognizance on the ground that the Magistrate has neither perused the material nor arrived at prima facie satisfaction about commission of the offences by the accused so as to take cognizance of the same. In absence of prima facie satisfaction, the order of cognizance becomes vulnerable. In the case of Saroj Kumar Mahapatra (supra) where the cognizance order is almost similar to the order passed in the present case, it was held by this Court as follows: