SRI GOVINDA NAG Vs. STATE OF ODISHA .VIG.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was the Secretary, Regulated Market Committee (hereafter 'R.M.C.'), Sambalpur has filed this application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail in connection with Cuttack Vigilance Cell P.S. Case No.12 of 2017 corresponding to V.G.R. Case No.10 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur for offences punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 409 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) On 29.04.2017 Mr. D.D. Sethi, D.S.P., Vigilance Cell, Cuttack lodged the first information report before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Odisha, Cuttack indicating therein that on the allegation that the petitioner along with two other Ex-Secretaries, R.M.C., Sambalpur have shown undue official favour to the suppliers towards purchase/expenditures of funds under the heading of dead stock furnitures, grading equipments and maintenance of weighbridge and weighing scale exceeding the budget provision during the year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Vigilance enquiry was taken up and so far as the petitioner is concerned, the enquiry revealed that during the period of 2014-15 and 2015-16, the petitioner with an ulterior motive, by abusing his official position in connivance with different suppliers showed undue official favour to them by way of placing order towards purchase of dead stock furniture, grading equipments and maintenance of weighbridge, weighing scale to the tune of Rs.1,54,88,870/- as against the budgetary provision of Rs.32,00,000/- without taking the approval of the OSAM Board and without assigning any reason which was in an excess of Rs.1,22,88,870/. It is further indicated in the F.I.R. that the petitioner and the other Ex- Secretaries have abused their official position with an ill intention to favour different suppliers without assigning any valid reason in connivance with the suppliers, made purchases/expenditures exceeding the budgetary provision showing undue official favour to the concerned Supplying Agencies and passed order for payment with ulterior motive to get pecuniary advantages for themselves and others.

(3.) Mr. Satya Sundar Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the functioning of the every Market Committee is done as per the provisions provided under Chapter-III of the Odisha Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1958 (hereafter '1958 Rules'). In terms of Rule 25 of the 1958 Rules, the Chairman is the controlling and supervising officer of the Market Committee, who shall, inter alia, keep a watch over the financial and administrative matter of the Market Committee. Chairman's detail power has been narrated under Rule 25(2)(a) to (e) of the 1958 Rules. Similarly Rule 25-A of the 1958 Rules envisages that every Market Committee shall have a Secretary and Rule 25-A(2)(xii) mandates the Secretary to make disbursement of all money lawfully payable by the Market Committee, provided that if individual disbursement exceeds Rs.500/-, it shall be passed by the Chairman. It is contended that the Sub-Collector, Sambalpur is the Chairman of the R.M.C., Sambalpur and therefore, the entire allegation of abuse of official position is out and out false as the petitioner had no such power to show any undue favour to anybody to enrich himself illegally. It is further contended that whatever expenditures were made, was based on the decision of the meeting of District Level Paddy Procurement Committee (hereafter 'DLPPC') which was attended by all the M.L.As, M.P. and Zilla Parishad Chairman of the locality under the chairmanship of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sambalpur wherein the expenditure budget was sanctioned and direction was given to the R.M.C., Sambalpur to make such arrangements for paddy procurement and proper storage. It is further contended that as per the instruction of the Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, all the R.M.Cs. had to make suitable arrangements for smooth paddy collection for which respective District Level Committees all over the State made similar arrangements and while doing so, in the larger interest of public, the budget limitation of the OSAM Board was ignored with the approval of respective Chairman/Collector of the districts. It is further contended that in Sambalpur, a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of R.D.C. (Northern Division) where all the Collectors were also present and in the said meeting, it was decided to make suitable arrangements for smooth paddy procurement and liberty was given to the Collectors area wise to determine their required budgets and accordingly, the Collector, Sambalpur had approved and sanctioned the expenditures. It is further contended that the petitioner had only executed the decision of the Market Committee and he being only the Chief Executing Officer had acted on behalf of the Market Committee which had sanctioned and approved all financial transactions. It is further contended that the petitioner is no way responsible for the alleged excess expenditures and he is also no way involved in favouring any individual by abusing his official position. It is further contended that the initiation of case is not only illegal but also aimed to tarnish the reputation of the petitioner in the society. It is further contended that as per the direction of this Court, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and fully cooperated with the investigation and there is no chance of absconding of the petitioner or tampering with the evidence and since the case has been instituted with malafide intention, unless the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, he will be seriously prejudiced.