PATITPABAN PANDA Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three applications. The point of law involved as well as the facts involved are identical and the Petitioner is also the same person. Therefore, all these three applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE Petitioner was on the relevant date a Government servant being a Lecturer in B. J. B. College. Bhubaneswar. Charges have been framed against him by the Special Judge, Bhubaneswar under Sections 120 -B, 420, 465, 468/34, 477 -A/34. Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and, the Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the said charge. Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 821' of 1984 is directed against the framing of charge in T. R. No. 74 of 1983; Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 822 of 1984 is directed against framing of charge in T. R. No. 35 of 1983 and Criminal Revision No. 12 of 1966 is directed against framing of charge in T. R. No. 4 of 1984.

(3.) THE only contention urged by Mr. Mund appearing for the Petitioner is that the allegations made against the Petitioner are related to his conduct and action as an Examiner of the Utkal University and while the Petitioner was functioning as an Examiner or Tabulator, he was not discharging his duties as a public servant and, therefore, the provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act, more particularly. Section 5 (1) (d) cannot have any applications. The learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that since the Petitioner is admittedly a public servant being a Lecturer of a Government College and has abused his, position as an Examiner or Tabulator to inflate .the marks, alter the mark -sheet and attesting the mark -sheet which did not bear the signature of the competent authority, the offence squarely comes within the ambit of Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and it would not be appropriate to quash the charge in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of Court. It is made clear at the outset that Mr. Mund for the Petitioner did not raise any contention with regard to the other charges against the Petitioner, namely Sections 465, 466, 477 -A, 120 -B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.