MANORANJAN SAMAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA (VIG.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Manoranjan Samal has filed this revision petition under section 401 read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to set aside the impugned order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore in T.R. Case No.47 of 2010 in rejecting his petition under section 239 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for discharge with a further prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 13.09.2016 in framing charges under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d)(ii) and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter for short '1988 Act'). The said case arises out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.17 of 2010.

(2.) The case was registered under section 7 of 1988 Act on 20.05.2010 on the first information report submitted by one Kali Charan Sahoo of village-Rajpur wherein he stated that he is a business man dealing with paddy and used to collect paddy from different cultivators of Balasore and Bhadrak districts and sell it at Medinipur of West Bengal. He further stated that he was making necessary tax payment at R.M.C. as per the rules of the Government at the rate of two per cent on the fixed rate of paddy and used to produce the tax payment receipts at Forest Gate, Jaleswar before the staff of R.M.C. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the employees of R.M.C. who were posted at the Forest Gate namely Srustidhar Behera, Market Sarkar and the petitioner who was the yardman were demanding Rs. 50/- to Rs. 300/- from each vehicle for passing through the gate. If the demand was not fulfilled, both the accused persons were not leaving the vehicles and not putting stamp on the receipts and even they used to take away the receipts of the R.M.C. If the vehicles carrying paddy were passing the gate without complying the demand of both the accused persons then they were to pay further tax in the border toll gate. The R.M.C. staff posted in the gate were collecting bribe forcibly from all the businessmen dealing with paddy and rice. It is further stated that on 21.05.2010 in the morning hours, he would carry trucks load of paddy purchasing it from Bhadrak to Medinipur and he has already made necessary tax payment at R.M.C., Bhadrak and obtained receipts and he was expecting that while passing through the R.M.C. gate at Rajghat, for the purpose of stamping the receipts, the two accused persons would demand Rs. 550/- otherwise they would not put any stamp. He further asserted that against his will, he was going to make payment of bribe money of Rs. 550/- to the two accused persons including the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Harmohan Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the impugned orders contended that there are discrepancies in the statement of the informant recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 vis-a-vis with that of the overhearing witness relating to the acceptance and recovery of bribe. He argued that both the informant and the overhearing witness in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 have implicated co-accused Srustidhar Behera to have made the demand and accepted the bribe money and in view of such statements, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. It is further contended that since the petitioner was working as Yardman of R.M.C., Jaleswar, the Sub-Collector, Balasore-cum-Chairman, R.M.C., Jaleswar was the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution against the petitioner as he was neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority and it is the Market Committee of the R.M.C. who is the appointing authority and disciplinary authority in respect of a Yardman and since the Market Committee has accorded any sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, the continuance of prosecution against the petitioner on the basis of sanction given by an incompetent authority is bad in law. Mr. Dhal, citing some of the provisions of the Odisha Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956 (hereafter '1956 Act') and the Odisha Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1958 (hereafter '1958 Rules') submitted that the provisions of the 1956 Act and 1958 Rules make it clear that it is the Market Committee who is the appointing authority as well as disciplinary authority of the petitioner and the Chairman of R.M.C. He asserted that since valid sanction is the pre-requisite for taking cognizance of any offence under the 1988 Act as stipulated under section 19 of the said Act, the learned trial Court was justified in dealing with the contentions raised relating to invalid sanction while considering the petition for discharge. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka reported in A.I.R. 2015 S.C. 3060 , State of Goa v. Babu Thomas reported in A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3606 and Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab reported in A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 1274.