LAWS(ORI)-2007-8-55

CHITTARANJAN MALLICK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On August 03, 2007
Chittaranjan Mallick Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEVERAL Vigilance Cases have been instituted against the present petitioner. Allegations in all the cases, except one, are for commission of alleged offence punishable under Sections 120 -B/420/467/468/472 IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) THE prosecution alleges that the then Managing Director of Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation) in conspiracy with the other subordinate officials of the said Corporation and private builders sanctioned and disbursed loan amounting to crores of rupees by bifurcating the said money into small individual loans limited to Rs.5,00,000/ -. It is further alleged that in such method, as the money, which is meant for the rural poor people, was advanced to private builders who have also admittedly become chronic defaulters in repaying the said loans and, as such, the Corporation has sustained huge loss. The petitioner admittedly was working as the Cashier on contractual basis in the said Corporation. It has been alleged against him that he was physically keeping the blank cheques as well as the cheques signed by the Managing Director, Shri Vinod Kumar, I.A.S. in his custody and he was physically handing over the cheques to the beneficiary builders with unusual delay.

(3.) IT is no doubt true that in some of the other applications filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, where similar allegations were made, this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, on rejection of the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner in the aforementioned cases and the observation made that if the petitioner surrenders and moves for bail, the said bail application shall be disposed of during the first hour of the day, it is alleged by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department that the petitioner neither surrendered before the Court below nor co -operated with the investigation. Consequently, the prosecution moved the learned Special C.J.M., Bhubaneswar on 20.4.2007 for issuance of N.B.W. against the accused which was allowed. The said accused could not be apprehended and absconded. On 6.6.2007, the prosecution moved the Court below for issuance of proclamation and attachment under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. which was allowed. It was only then the accused surrendered on 2.7.2007. Mr. Mohapatra vehemently argued that even previously when the accused was granted interim protection by this Court for co -operating with the investigation, he did not do so and, as a matter of fact, refused to give his specimen handwritings and answered to the queries made by the Investigating Officer in an evasive manner and even refused to give answer to some of the said queries. He also submitted that after the petitioner surrendered, the learned Special C.J.M. remanded the petitioner to police custody for three days for interrogation. It has been candidly stated by Mr. Mohapatra that the then Managing Director of the Corporation, namely, Shri Vinod Kumar, IAS is also an accused in the cases under investigation along with the then F.A. and C.A.O. who has retired in the meantime.