KAMALA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of cognizance dated 11.9.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R.Case No. 85 of 2002 arising out of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S.Case No. 22 of 2001.

(2.) BASING on the FIR lodged by one B.K.Das, Inspector of Vigilance Cell, Cuttack on 25.7.2001 before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar Division, Vigilance P.S.Case No. 22 of 2001 was registered for the offence under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act and Section 120 -B of the I.P.C. On completion of investigation of the said case, charge -sheet was submitted on 7.7.2002 arraying the present petitioner and one Sri R.K.Routray as accused. After perusing the materials on record and case diary, learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar by order dated 11.9.2002 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act and Section 120 -B of the IPC and directed issue of process against the accused persons. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the above noted order dated 11.9.2002 of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar.

(3.) MR . D.K.Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel (Vigilance), on the other hand, submits that the materials on record constitute a clear prima facie case for the alleged offences and so, the impugned order of cognizance cannot be quashed. He submits that documents and statements are available in the case diary to show that the petitioner defying the reports of the Collectors, notes of the Secretary of the Department and the order of the Chief Minister directed for continuance of supply of the I.F.Salt and asked the Collectors of the districts to receive those stocks, which prima facie indicate that she extended unusual official favour to the concerned firm. Regarding the documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohapatra submits that at the stage of cognizance or charge, defence plea and evidence are not to be considered. In this regard he places reliance on the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi,** (2005) 30 OCR (SC) 177.