SANTOSH KUMAR SAMAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Kanungo, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of revision petitioner. He submits, interference is sought with order dtd. 22/3/2023 made by the Special Judge, Vigilance in refusing to discharge the case against his client. The order was made on restoration by the High Court in an earlier revision filed.

(2.) He submits, his client and two others were accused of committing offence under, inter alia, Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(c)(d) in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as the provisions stood prior to 26/7/2018. The contract provided for advance payments made to the contractor and for settlement on final bill. On completion of the work the contractor raised bill of ?48,00,000/- and in event excess payment allegedly ?25,00,000/-had been made, it can be recovered. His client did no wrong and that is why the proceeding has been dragging for more than 13 ' years. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 355, paragraph 15 ( print).

(3.) Mr. Das, learned advocate, Standing Counsel, Vigilance appears on behalf of State and submits, the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 768, paragraph 80 referred to its earlier decision in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299 wherein it was held that interference in order of framing charges or refusing to discharge is called for in the rarest of rare case, only to correct patent error of jurisdiction.