NALINIKANTA MUDULI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the charge -sheet in V.G.R. Case No. 17 of 2001 pending before the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar and also for quashing the order dated 9.12.2002 passed by the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in the aforesaid case taking cognizance of offences under Sections 468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) EARLIER this application was heard along with Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 141 and 149 of 2003. All the three applications filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure were disposed of by a common judgment dated 25.4.2003. So far as the prayer in the present application is concerned, same having been allowed, there was no need to pass any further order in the other two applications. Said judgment dated 25.4.2003 was challenged by the Vigilance Department before the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 870, 871 and 872 of 2004. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the order passed by this Court and remitted the cases for fresh disposal in accordance with law vide judgment dated 12.8.2004. Learned Counsel for the parties were therefore again heard after the case was remitted back for fresh disposal by this Court.

(3.) SO far as this case is condemned, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner challenges competency of the I.O. in submitting a charge sheet and the legality of the order dated 9.12.2002 passed by the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar taking cognizance of offences under Sections 468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code. The first ground taken by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Investigating Officer who submitted charge -sheet being an Inspector of Police (Vigilance Cell), Unit Office, Bhubaneswar, has no competency or authority to submit a charge -sheet against the Petitioner who is not public servant for commission of offences under Sections 468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code. The second ground taken by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar is not competent to take cognizance of the said offences in absence of a charge -sheet being filed for commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Shri D.K. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department referring to the notification of the Government of Orissa in the Home Department dated 13.7.2001 submitted that Office of the S.P. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar has been declared to be a police Station and accordingly the I.O. who was working as Inspector in the Vigilance Department is competent to submit charge -sheet for commission of the offences under the Indian Penal Code, even against a person not being a public servant. So far as second ground is concerned, Sri Mohapatra submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure intimation regarding drawal of the F.I.R. having been given to the learned Special C.J.M.(V), Bhubaneswar, a charge -sheet only could be filed in that Court and in no other Court.