ARABINDA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is u petition under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure by the accused-petitioner against the order dated 13-2-1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Keonjhar in framing the charges against the petitioner under Section 4.of the Orissa Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called as "the Act").

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on an F.I.R: being lodged by one Hamira Soren a case under Section 384, I.P.C. was registered against one Keshab Patra and Padmalochari Shah on the allegation that the informant who is a beneficiary of the Million Well Scheme was not allowed to dig well and whereas the aforesaid two accused persons forced the informant to sign on five pieces of blank papers in the month of March, 1993 despite his refusal to do so on the threat of Bhujali. Thereafter, the informant was asked by the Block Office to complete the digging of well failing which he will be liable to repay Rs. 16,200/- towards its costs. It was the case of the informant that he was not allowed to undertake any work for he has been paid any money for the purpose of digging of well inasmuch as the accused persons named in the F.I.R. had drawn money on the strength of the signatures extorted from him on blank papers. Charge-sheet was submitted on completion of investigation against the above two persons under Section 384, I.P.C. and a case under Section 4 of the Act was also made out against the petitioner.

(3.) Heard Shri Debasis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. It is the submission of Sri Panda that in absence of any prima facie case and materials to make out a case under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the order of the learned Special Judge in framing charge against the petitioner is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that there being no material available on record to show a prima facie case that the petitioner has neglected any duty required to be performed by him under the Act, framing of charges against the petitioner is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside, inasmuch as the petitioner has not done anything contrary to the provisions of the Act punishable under Section 4 thereof and as such the charge framed against him is to be set aside.