PREMANIDHI SETH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who is an accused in C.T.R. No. 29 of 2008 in the file of Learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur arising out of Sambalpur Vig. P.S. Case No. 58 of 2005 for offences under Ss. 13 (2), 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 and Ss. 420 and 120 -B, Indian Penal Code, has filed this petition under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceeding of the above noted case on the ground that the materials on record prima facie do not make out any of the offences alleged and there has been total no application of mind in the matter of grant of sanction for prosecution, and therefore, continuance of the proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

(2.) Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that cases were initiated by the Vigilance Department simultaneously regarding purchase of weighbridge by Regulated Market Committees (in short, 'RMCs') of Attabira, Bargarh, padmapur and Sambalpur, but prosecution was not launched against any of the Chairmans of such Committees on the plea that no case is made out against them, whereas, the present Petitioner, who was Sub -Collector -cum -Chairman, RMC, Sambalpur was charge -sheeted although the allegation and materials in all these cases were same. He states that the above noted RMCs purchased weighbridges from the same dealer at the same rate during the same time span; so, it was illegal and unfair on the part of the investigating agency and the sanctioning authority to launch prosecution against the Petitioner -Chairman. According to him, the Petitioner had no direct dealing with the supplier -firm and the materials reveal no malafide intention or misuse of power by the Chairman. In essence, Mr. Mishra demands quashing of the above noted proceeding against the Petitioner on the ground of lack of material to constitute prima facie case for the offences as well as discrimination in the matter of prosecution.

(3.) Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Learned Standing Counsel (Vig.) stoutly opposes the prayer of the Petitioner stating that launching of prosecution against a particular accused depends on the facts, circumstance and evidence available and therefore, the proceeding against the present Petitioner cannot be quashed on the plea that the Chairmen of the other RMCs were not charge -sheeted. He states that the materials collected during investigation reveal a clear prima facie case against the Petitioner for commission of offence under Sec. 13(2), 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 and Ss. 420, and 120 -B, Indian Penal Code and therefore, launching of prosecution was justified. Mr. Mohapatra produced the case diaries of Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 6 of 2006, Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 70 of 2005, Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 58 of 2005 and File No. 39 of 2004 relating to Ex -Secretary of RCM, Attabira.