DR. (MRS.) UNMADINI MOHANTY Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the criminal revisions arise out of the order dated 15.4.2003 passed by the Special Judge (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 21 of 2002 (arising out of RC.01 (A)/99) rejecting the petitions filed by both the Petitioners under Section 227 at the Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge them from the alleged charges. Both the Petitioners are accused persons in the aforesaid case along with another co -accused Bhaskar Subudhi. Since both the revisions arise out of the same order, both the cases were heard together and are disposed of in this common judgment.

(2.) FROM the records appears that on 1.1.1999 the Inspector, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar drew up First Information Report on receipt of reliable information that the Petitioner Dr. Balakrishna Joshi entered into a criminal conspiracy with M/s Laxmi Drug House, Bhubaneswar and cheated the Government and caused wrongful loss to the Department and subsequently made wrongful gain for self and others. The prosecution allegation is that the bills submitted by the aforesaid firm were checked either by Dr. Balakrishna Joshi or Dr. (Mrs.) U. Mohanty who certified that medicines supplied were as per barest need and cost of each item had been checked at the time of receipt of the medicines and that mentioned in the bills are found to be correct. Further allegation of the prosecution is that in spite of the fact that the said bills were faulty and inflated, endorsements were given by either of the Petitioners. In view of such endorsements given, payments were made to the firm resulting in loss to the State Exchequer.

(3.) SHRI S.K. Pad hi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the C.B.I., on the other hand, submitted that there are materials available on record to show that the firm had submitted inflated bills showing higher rate of medicines specially those pertaining to diabetes and life saving drugs. Said firm supplied medicines to the P & T Dispensary as many as on 331 occasions during the period of contract from October, 1997 to November, 1998 and the present Petitioners issued "final certificate" putting their rubber impression with signature on the reverse of the medicine supply bills of the firm. The certificate indicates that the medicines supplied were on the basis of supply order issued and the quantities of medicines for which supply orders issued were for the barest need of the concerned patient and that the cost of each item has been checked at the time of receipt of the medicines and that mentioned in the bills are found to be correct. Referring to such materials available on record, it was contended by the Learned Counsel for the C.B.I. that the documents clearly show that a strong prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners. So far as non -consideration of the documents placed by the Petitioners at the time of framing of charge is concerned, it was contended by the Learned Counsel for the C.B.I. that at the time of framing of charge the Court is only required to consider the question of sufficiency of ground for proceeding against the accused on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating agency. There is no scope for the Court to give an opportunity to the accused to produce evidence or consider such evidence as defence may produce at that stage.