NALINIKANTA MUDULI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Misc. Case No. 306 of 2003 has been filed :

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for both parties in course of hearing of the cases.prayed for taking Criminal Misc. Case No. 303 of 2003 first and submitted that result in the said case will govern the two other cases. Accordingly, said Criminal Misc. Case is taken up first.

(3.) SO far as this case is concerned. Sri. B. Baug, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order taking cognizance on two grounds; (1) I.O. being an Inspector of Police (Vigilance Cell), Unit Office, Bhubaneswar has no competency or authority under law to submit charge sheet against the petitioner for commission of offence under Sections 468/471/420 of the Penal Code; and (2) The learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar not being empowered has no jurisdiction to take cognizance in respect of the said offences. The aforesaid submissions are made by Sri Baug on the ground that the when the public servant has been exonerated and charge sheet not been filed against him for commission of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Investigating Officer of the Vigilance Department had no authority to submit charge sheet and the Special C.J.M. (Vigilance) has no jurisdiction to take cognizance. Shri D. K. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for Vigilance Department referred to the notification of the Government of Orissa, Home Department dated 4.3.1997 and submitted that the office of the S.P. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar has been declared to be a police station in the said notification and accordingly the I.O. who is working as Inspector in the Vigilance Department is competent to submit charge sheet for commission of offence under the Penal Code against the incumbent not being a public servant.