RAJENDRA NATH NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition under Ses. 482 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of the petitioner for quashing of the chargesheet dtd. 30/11/2017 under Annexure-1 and the impugned order of cognizance dtd. 22/12/2018 vide Annexure-2 passed in connection with G.R. Case No.35 of 2009 by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna on the grounds inter alia that the proceeding against him is not tenable in law and hence, deserves to be interfered with and quashed.

(2.) The petitioner's contention is that the order of cognizance under Annexure-2 is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law as the chargesheet under Annexure-1 does not reveal a prima facie case or any cognizable offence to have been committed by him. It is claimed that the learned court below grossly erred in taking cognizance of an offence under Ses. 3(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (in short 'the P.C. Act') as it was not an offence with effect from 26/7/2018 and furthermore, there has been no violation of any of the regulations of OPWD code, inasmuch as, the rate of the items purchased was approved by a Committee consisting of senior officials of the State Government. There has been no illegality committed, as according to the petitioner, towards the purchase of Electro Chlorinators and no malafide or mens rea on the part of the petitioner can be attributed which is an essential ingredient and the same is found to be conspicuously absent. So to say, the petitioner has challenged the initiation of Vigilance proceeding in G.R. Case No.35 of 2009 with an additional ground that in a similar case (VGR No.29 of 2009), no chargesheet was filed.

(3.) Heard Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department.