HARI SHANKAR UPADHAYA Vs. STATE (VIGILANCE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 482, of the Cr.P.C., 1973 with a prayer to quash the order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur in CTR Case No.70 of 2007 rejecting the petition filed by the present petitioner under section 239 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 to discharge the petitioner as an accused from the charges levelled against him under Sections 13 (2) read with section 13 (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was posted as D.F.O., Sundargarh (Territorial) during the period from 10.11.1997 to 02.06.2000. Some private persons made applications to the petitioner for removal of certain trees from their recorded plots. The petitioner forwarded the application to the Tahasildar, Rajgangpur calling for a report about the ownership of the concerned land. Thereafter, the petitioner directed for joint verification by Tahasildar and Range Officer which was duly submitted by the said authorities in favour of the applicants. On receipt of a field verification report from the Tahasildar, the tenants were intimated to submit the conversion list and after submission of the same, the petitioner who was the D.F.O. sent the said conversion list of the trees to the Range Officer to pass the Timber and Firewood and also directed Assistant Conservator of Forests to issue T.T. permit in favour of the tenants to remove the trees from the recorded lands. All these were done during the year 1999-2000. In the year 2001 the Inspector of Vigilance, Sundargarh Vigilance Squad drew up one F.I.R. on receipt of some allegation that the tenants on the strength of the T.T. permit issued in their favour, had removed some trees from the Government land in connivance with the forest and revenue officials. The field verification was made and investigation was taken up examining the witnesses and the documents. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the year 2007 with the allegations that the present petitioner as D.F.O. along with other forest and revenue officials entered into a criminal conspiracy being hand in gloves with one Pawan Kumar Ghananiar @ Agrawal, a forest contractor and facilitated removal of trees from the Government land, as a result of which, the Government sustained loss of Rs. 4,64,988/-. The charge sheet was submitted against the present petitioner, the then Range Officer Ashok Kumar Tripathy as well as above named forest Contractor and one revenue supervisor.

(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that excepting some imaginary allegations that the petitioner in connivance with one private forest contractor and other officials made wrong demarcation of the lands thereby facilitating removal of trees from the Government land, there was absolutely no material to implicate the present petitioner with the alleged offences on the admitted facts situation of the case. It was submitted that the petitioner was working as D.F.O. during the relevant period and on receipt of applications from the private individuals, he forwarded' the same to the concerned Tahasildar who along with the concerned Forest Range Officer conducted joint verification and field enquiry and submitted the report to the D.F.O. Thereafter, the D.F.O. followed all official formalities and directed for issuance of T.T. permit as per Rules. Thus, admittedly, there was absolutely no role played by the present petitioner in making the field enquiry or demarcating the lands of the private individuals so as to fasten him with the liability of facilitating removal of trees from the Government land. It was submitted that some statements have been manufactured by the Investigating Agency mentioning that the said forest contractor was coming to the office and was getting the papers signed by the present petitioner and that none of the private individual applicants had ever come to the said office for the said purpose. It was further submitted that even if the argument is conceded to be true that the official formalities were looked after by one forest contractor, still there is no material on record to show that the present petitioner had any role to play in demarcating the alleged lands nor there is any whisper that the present petitioner ever influenced or tried to influence the revenue and other officials to submit a false report. Hence, it was submitted that the learned trial court without proper application of judicial mind, framed the charges merely basing on the charge-sheet which has dragged the petitioner to unnecessary criminal liability for which he was never responsible.