MAMATA PATI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA,VIGILANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance) , Baripada in V.G.R. Case No.08 of 2015 rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 239, Cr.P.C. to discharge her from the allegations made against her.

(2.) The petitioner was the Inspector In-charge of Badasahi Police Station in the District of Mayurbhanj. On 01.03.2015. One Godabarish Acharya lodged an F.I.R. at the said Police Station which was registered under Section 279/337, I.P.C.. The said informant requested the present petitioner to provide him with a copy of F.I.R. so as to claim the insurance but, the petitioner allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.10, 000/- as illegal gratification to supply the copy. Thereafter, on request of the informant the amount was reduced to Rs.5000/-. The informant submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Balasore regarding the alleged demand of gratification and accordingly, Balasore Vigilance P.S. case No.13 of 2015 was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a trap was laid. On 03.03.2015 the Vigilance officials along with the complainant went to the Police Station and the complainant offered the demanded amount of Rs.5000/- to the present petitioner who was present in her office. She allegedly opened a drawer and asked the complainant to keep the money therein and thereafter he asked the complainant to wait outside. Thereafter, the petitioner went out of her office towards bazar area by the backside gate of the police station. The vigilance officials along with the witnesses rushed inside the office room and following the petitioner detained her on the road and brought her back to the office. It is further alleged that on a thorough search of the office room the money in shape of currency notes given by the complainant to the petitioner was found beneath the table cloth on the table and was seized. The specific place inside the drawer and on the table top were tested with Sodium Carbonate Solution Wash which established that the tainted currency notes were placed there. Thereafter, the right hand wash of the petitioner was taken but the colour did not change. When her left hand was washed, the colour of the solution changed to pink. Thereafter, other formalities of investigation were taken up, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner. The learned trial court after taking cognizance, placed the matter for consideration of charge while an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner to discharge her with the submissions that the materials as placed on behalf of the prosecution did not make out a prima-facie case. The said application was rejected by the learned trial court by the impugned order dated 15.11.2017 and the case was posted for framing of charge.

(3.) It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the materials as placed on behalf of the prosecution before the learned trial court are not only insufficient to make out a prima-facie case but also self-contradictory in nature. It was submitted that the complainant had signed on the F.I.R. showing to have received a copy of the same and hence, there was no question of asking for money to provide a copy of the F.I.R. to him. Secondly, after registration of the F.I.R. by the petitioner, the investigation of the case was handed over to one A.S.I. of Police of the concerned Police Station and hence, there was no occasion for the petitioner to provide a copy to the informant. Thirdly, it was submitted that as per the seizure lists prepared by the Investigating Agency when the wash of both the hands of the petitioner was taken, the colour did not change but it has been alleged that the hand wash of the left hand of the petitioner changed colour. Fourthly, it was submitted that admittedly, the petitioner was not present in the office room when the Vigilance Officers reached there and the petitioner was brought back from the road while she was going out of the Police Station. It was also submitted in that respect that the spot map has been wrongly prepared and there being no backside gate of the police station, the allegation as made by the prosecution is false. Fifthly, it was contended that when the complainant knew that the petitioner had kept the money below the table cloth, there was no justification for the Vigilance Officers to search the entire room to find out the money. Sixthly, it was submitted that the learned trial court while rejecting the application of the petitioner has not assigned any reason to justify that there were sufficient materials to frame charge against the petitioner. Lastly, it was contended that the sanction order obtained for prosecution against the petitioner is defective.