JASOBANT NARAYAN MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against that part of the impugned order dated 22-6-2007 passed by the learned Special judge (Vigilance), Balasore in T. R. No. 95 of 2007 by which charge for commission of offences under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short 'p. C. Act')and under Section 201 of the Indian Penal code (in short 'i. P. C. ') has been framed against the petitioners. By the impugned order charge for commission of offences under Sections 7, 12 and 13 (2) of the P. C. Act and Section 201 of the I. P. C. also has been framed against co-accused Nrusingh charan Rath.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case relevant for this revision are as follows :-On the written report of complainant-decoy ananta Kumar Padhi alleging demand for bribe of Rs. 100/- by co-accused nrusingh Charan Rath, who was working as A. S. I. of Police, Aradi Outpost under dhusuri Police Station, Balasore, Vigilance p. S. Case No. 12 of 1998 was registered on 3-5-1998. The bribe was stated to be demanded by the co-accused in order to take action on a written report lodged by the complainant earlier. In course of investigation into the Vigilance P. S. Case No. 12 of 1998, the co-accused was trapped in the evening on 5-5-1998 by the Vigilance Police Officers in the Outpost after he received Rs. 100/-from the complainant-decoy. After the trap, the complainant left for his house. It is alleged that the petitioners, who were working respectively as the Officer-in-Charge of dhusuri Police Station, the A. S. I. of Police of Dhusuri Police Station and the Circle Inspector of Police of Bhadrak (R) during that period, brought the complainant from his house to Police Station where he was assaulted and kept inside the lock up in the night. It is also alleged that the petitioners pressurized and persuaded the complainant for compromise of the Vigilance case, and for that purpose a false case bearing dhusuri P. S. Case No. 37 of 1998 was registered against the complainant for alleged commission of offences under Sections 448, 323, 294 and 354 of the I. P. C. It is alleged that commission of above acts by the petitioners and registration of Dhusuri P. S. Case no. 37 of 1998 against the complainant were in order to screen the co-accused from legal punishment in the Vigilance case, and that the petitioners abetted the offence of acceptance of bribe by the co-accused. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was accordingly placed against the petitioners and the co-accused under Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (l)9 (d)/7 of the P. C. Act and sections 201/109/34 of the I. P. C. The learned court below, upon hearing rival contentions, passed the impugned order.

(3.) IN assailing the legality of the impugned order, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the allegations against the present petitioners are accepted on face value, such allegations do not constitute offences punishable under either Section 12 of the P. C. Act or Section 201 of the I. P. C. Referring to the statutory requirements for commission of offences punishable under Section 12 of the P. C. Act and under Section 201 of the I. P. C. as well as judicial pronouncements, it is argued that there is no scope to array the present petitioners as accused persons along with the co-accused in the Vigilance case on the allegation that the petitioners either abetted the commission of any of the offences under which the co-accused stands charged or caused any evidence of the commission of any of the offences under which the co-accused stands charged to disappear with the intention of screening the co-accused from legal punishment. The learned counsel appearing for the vigilance Department vehemently assails the maintainability of the revision against an order of framing charge which is asserted to be an interlocutory order. It is further argued that the petitioners pressurized the complainant by instituting criminal case on false allegations to compromise with co-accused in the Vigilance case and, therefore, are liable to be prosecuted not only for abetment of the offences for which the co-accused stands charged but also for offence of causing disappearance of evidence to screen the co-accused from legal punishment.