SMT. PRATIMA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA (VIG.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Pratima Behera to set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore in T.R. Case No.43 of 2013 in rejecting the application under section 239 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for discharge and framing charge under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said case arises out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.56 of 2009.

(2.) On 25.11.2009 on the First Information Report submitted by S.K. Samal, Inspector, Vigilance, Balasore Division, Balasore before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Balasore Division, Balasore, the aforesaid Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.56 of 2009 was registered under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Sri Anil Kumar Sethi, husband of the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Manas Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner challenging the impugned order contended that the petitioner who is the wife of a public servant cannot be prosecuted for the charge of abetment of alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets by the public servant. It is further contended that though F.I.R. was lodged only against the husband of the petitioner but while submitting charge sheet, the Vigilance Police added the petitioner as an accused along with her husband on the ground that she abetted her husband in acquiring disproportionate assets. It is contended that the petitioner was an Income Tax Assessee since 2000-2001 and filing income tax returns regularly. In the year 2000, while she was staying in Talcher, she was doing dairy farming and also earning money by tuition. She had passed M.A. in Physiology from Utkal University, Vani Vihar and she completed data entry course and started data entry business since 2003-04. She had borrowed Rs.2.5 lakhs from her father to purchase land at Bhubaneswar but during course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had not taken the independent source of income of the petitioner as well as income tax returns filed by her. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer has acted autocratically and his action is vitiated by bias and intentionally avoided disclosing the source of income of the petitioner from the income tax returns while filing charge sheet. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed the income tax documents which the petitioner stated to have obtained under R.T.I. Act from the Income Tax Authority. It is contended that if the income tax returns of the petitioner will be taken into consideration then there will be no case against the petitioner and there is no iota of evidence that the petitioner abetted her husband or made any conspiracy or instigated in the alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets by her husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in cases of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohanlal Soni reported in AIR 2000 SC 2583, Dilawar Babu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2002 SC 564, Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao reported in 2013 (I) Orissa Law Reviews (SC) 74 and A.R. Saravanan v. State reported in 2003 Criminal Law Journal 1140.