MANABINDA SARKAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the proceeding in G. R. Case No. 393 of 2001 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore.

(2.) From the record it appears that the aforesaid G. R. case has been registered for commission of offence under Sections 489(B)/489(C)/34 of the Penal Code against the petitioner and some other accused persons. The case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by one Santanu Kumar Sahoo on 12-7-2001 before the O. I. C., Town Police Station, Jeypore. Allegations made in the F.I.R. is that on 12-7-2001 at about 1.30 p.m. when the informant arrived at his petrol pump one Tankadhar Bisoi who works there showed him a five hundred note and requested him whether the same is genuine or fake note. On being questioned Tankadhar Bisoi informed that he got the note from two boys standing at a distance. Thinking the note to be genuine the informant asked the boys as to where from they got the note and the boys disclosed the name of one Milan and ran away towards Christian Petta. Thereafter, Milan and other two boys who disclosed the name of Milan were caught-hold and on being asked the boys stated that they were given the note by one Yusuf Jahan (Babloo) who is an accused in the case. The boys also stated that the said accused Yusuf Jahan had requested them to change the note in the petrol pump. On the basis of such allegations made in the F.I.R. investigation was taken up and charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons including the present petitioner for commission of offences as stated above. It also appears from the order-sheet that accused persons namely Yusuf John alias Bablu and Seru alias Lalaram alias Gulab Singh had been taken to custody and another accused Johnright Naik alias Basu was on bail. Rest of the accused persons have not been apprehended including the petitioner. Learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore by order dated 18-12-2001 issued N.B.W. against the petitioner and other absconding accused persons subsequently by order dated 22-12-2001 split up the case and committed the same to the Court of Session so far as other accused persons who were either in custody or on bail are concerned.

(3.) Shri Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for quashing the proceeding so far as the present petitioner is concerned solely on the ground that except the statement of co-accused there is absolutely no other material on record to implicate the petitioner in commission of offence. According to Sri Sarangi, there being no legal evidence available against the petitioner till today the Investigating Officer neither could have submitted charge-sheet nor the learned Magistrate could have taken cognizance of offence and issued N.B.W. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that in a case of such nature reliance has to be placed on the statement of co-accused as statement of independent witnesses are rarely available. He also submitted that the petitioner should face trial and if no legal evidence is available against him, he may be acquitted in the trial Court and this Court should not interfere at this stage in exercise of powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. and quash the proceeding.