RAMAKANTA SAHOO Vs. SURESH PRASAD PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-Ramakanta Sahoo with a prayer to quash the order dated 09.08.1996 passed in 1.C.C. Case No.6 of 1996, by which order the learned S.D.J.M., Biramaharajpur has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 409/34, I.P.C. The essential ground of challenge by the petitioner, whowas then working as Block Development Officer (B.D.O), is noncompliance of Section 197 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Mr. S.R. Mulia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on perusal of the complaint petition, it would be clear that the complainant was a resident of village Lumarjena and it was alleged that improvement of the village road was executed by the B.D.O. (petitioner herein) and Junior Engineer-Sk. Abdul Raif, who claimed to be in-charge of the said road improvements. It was further alleged that the present petitioner-B.D.O and the Junior Engineer acted in a negligent manner and alleging various irregularities in carrying out of such improvements of the village road for which the villagers had made complaint to the Sub-Collector claiming the said work of an inferior quality. It appears from the impugned order dated 09.08.1996 that the learned S.D.J.M., Biramaharajpur was pleased to take cognizance of offence under Section 409/34, I.P.C. against the petitioner and Junior Engineer.

(3.) Mr. L. Pradhan, learned counsel for the opposite partycomplainant supporting the order of cognizance stated that carrying out of inferior work and thereby causing loss to public exchequer cannot come under the definition of official duty of such public servant. Therefore, sanction under Section 197 is not required. He further submitted that the petitioner was a beneficiary of the public work which was carried out by the Junior Engineer and the complainant being the beneficiary of such public road, has every right and locus standi to question to inferior work and any objection on the ground of lack of locus standi ought to be rejected.