STATE Vs. MAN MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned courts below have passed common orders in all the four cases. It is unnecessary to give facts of all the four cases. It would be sufficient to refer to the facts in G. R. Case No. 385 of 1962. The connected proceedings arising out of this case in which the question of transfer was considered at previous stages are Misc. Case No. 8 of 1966 in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), cuttack, Criminal Revision No. 269 of 1965 in the High Court, Criminal Revision no. 8 of 1965 in the court of the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, and Criminal Revision no. 459 of 1965 in the High Court. A chart was supplied by Mr. Parida, counsel for the Vigilance Department. No exception has been taken to correctness of that chart by Mr. Mohanty for the accused. The facts narrated in this Criminal Revision is on the basis of that Chart. The charge against the accused is under Section 420/120-R- I. P. C. The prosecution case is that the accused contracted to supply superior G. I. pipes 'b' class, but in fact they supplied inferior pipes 'a' Class. The rate of 'a' class 4" fis. pipes is Rs. 6. 50 per rft. (running feet) and that of 'b' class pipes is Rs. 11. 49 per rft. 'a' class pipes have brown colour band. The accused re-painted the brown colour band by yellow colour band to indicate 'b' class. The tender for the supply was invited by the Joint Director, Agriculture (Engineering) at Bhubanes. war on 712-61. Tenders were submitted by the accused on 11-12-61 which were opened at bhubaneswar on 14-12-61. Orders were placed by the Joint Director of Agriculture at Bhubaneswar on 12-1-1962 for 5780 rft. of 4" dis. G. I. pipes of 'b' Class variety. Bills for the costs in triplicate were submitted to the said office through the Assistant Agricultural Engineer (Mechanical), Cuttack in charge of workshop at jobra, Cuttack, for payment. Accused supplied 274 pieces of 4" dis. 'a' class pipes representing them to be 'b' class variety at the Agricultural Workshop at Jubra on 15-2-62 for supply to kendrapara, Banki, Bayalsish Mouza, Hinjilicul Aska, Rushukulya and Athgarh works. Seven bills were submitted to the joint Directorate of Agriculture (Engineering), Bhubaneswar on 21-2-62 to the tune of Rs. 69, 971-10 paise charging the price of 'b' class G. I. Pipes and demanding 90 per cent against the supply. On 14-3-1961. 90 per cent of the total price amounting to Rs. 63,000 was paid. In all 262 pipes were seized.

(2.) ON the aforesaid facts, charge-sheet was submitted on 6-5-64 Cognizance was taken by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Cuttack on 30-6-64. On the very dale the cases were transferred to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, bhubaneswar. Charge was framed on 12-11-64. Accused filed an application for transfer before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Cuttack on 19-3-65 On 6-5-1965 the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) transferred the cases from the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate-Bhubaneswar, to the file of Shri K. C. Mohapatra, Magistrate of the first class, Cuttack. The State filed Criminal Revision no. 269 of 1965 on 31-5-65 against the order of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial ). On 7-6-65 this Court dismissed the revision with an observation that the state should move the Sessions Judge at the first instance. The State filed a criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, which was dismissed on 238-65. This revision has been filed on 21-9-1966 against the Order of the Additional district Magistrate (Judicial) dated 5-6-65.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack found that the Additional District magistrate (Judicial), Cuttack, had jurisdiction and power to withdraw the case from the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, to his own file under Section 528 Cr. P. C. and to transfer the same to a Magistrate of the first class at Cuttack. The Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) was of opinion that the Magistrate, both at Bhubaneswar and Cuttack, had co-ordinate jurisdiction to try cases under Section 420/120-B, I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge, took a contrary view that a Magistrate at Cuttack was not competent to try these cases. He, however, dismissed the revisions on the view that they should have been filed before the Sessions Judge, Puri, and that he had no jurisdiction to entertain them.