SUBASH CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the order dated 31.7.2002 passed by the Special judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 153 of 1999 rejecting the petition of the Petitioner for discharging him.

(2.) FROM the record it appears that one Santosh Sahoo lodged an FIR before the S.P., Vigilance, Cuttack alleging therein that consolidation operation was going on in his village. During such consolidation operation Sabik plot No. 1409 extending to an area of Ac. 0.02 decimals which is a homestead land was in his possession, but the Petitioner who is working as an Amin in consolidation office had recorded a part of it in the name of one Madhu Sahu and Budhi Sahu of his village. When the informant came to know about the same be met the Petitioner and on being questioned it is alleged that the Petitioner demanded rupees five hundred for correction of record as well as map. It is further alleged in the FIR that said rupees five hundred was to be paid on 28.11.98. After receipt of the said FIR a trap was laid. During trap the Petitioner was arrested and the case was registered for commission of offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After investigation charge -sheet was submitted for commission of the aforesaid offences. When the matter was pending before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar an application was filed by the Petitioner to discharge him on the basis of the statement of the informant recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the said petition having been rejected in the impugned order, the present application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenged the order basically on the following grounds:

(3.) SHRI Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department contended that there were materials on record on the basis of which presumption can be drawn that the accused -petitioner had committed the offence and that no sanction was necessary in a case where accused was caught in a trap. It was also contended that the statements of the informant recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure at his behest could not have been taken into consideration by the Special Judge and the officer who investigated the case had the authority to do so and therefore there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order.