SANJAY KUMAR PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 5-8-2005 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T. R. No. 59 of 2002 framing charge against the petitioner under Sections 13 (l) (c) (d) and 13 (2) of the P. C. Act read with Sections 419/420/468/471/409/114/ 120 (B) IPC. By the said order, the learned special Judge (Vigilance) has also framed charge against the co-accused under Sections 13 (l) (c) (d) and 13 (2) of the P. C. Act read with Sec. 409 IPC.

(2.) THE allegation of the prosecution is that the present petitioner while functioning as Add1. Manager, Finance in Orissa state Police Housing and Welfare Corporation limited Bhubaneswar appointed one siba Charana Parida as his follower orderly (F. O.) on 24-6-1998. Since then, he was taking the salary of the said F. O. every month for payment to the said orderly and was submitting the voucher the next day after showing disbursement of the amount to the said F. O. The petitioner himself was attesting the payments shown to have been made by him. On vigilance enquiry, it was proved that the said Siba Charan Parida was a fake person and the petitioner being a public servant has misappropriated an amount of Rs. 44,319. 00 towards the salary of the said fake Follower Orderly for the period from 1-6-1988 to 30-4-1994.

(3.) MR. Rath, learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not present at the time of framing of charge. Therefore, there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 228 Cr. P. C. He further submitted that the petitioner had certain documents in his possession, which he wanted to file before the trial Court. Had those documents been filed, innocence of the petitioner would have been proved. Non-affording of opportunity to do so has caused great prejudice to the accused petitioner. On the other hand, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance department, submitted that the order framing charge is an interlocutory one. There-fore, the revision is not maintainable. He further submitted that in the meantime more than 18 months have elapsed and one witness has already been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Section 19 (3) (c) of the P. C. Act, 1988, the revision is not maintainable.