BAIDYANATH PATNAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the officer -in -charge of Dharmasala Police Station in the district of Cuttack on 25.12.1967. That day at about 7 -30 p.m., a trap was laid on him by the Vigilance Police on the allegation that the petitioner received bribe. Vigilance Case No. 45 of 1967 was registered at the Cuttack Vigilance Police Station under Section 161, I.P.C. In respect of the very incident, the petitioner made a Station Diary entry and filed F.I.R. in the Dharmasala Police Station giving a completely different version of the story. That case was registered as Dharmasala Police Station Case No. 151 of 1967. According to the Vigilance Department, the petitioner accepted illegal gratification. Petitioner's case is that currency notes were put into his pocket forcibly without his knowledge and against his desire. It is unnecessary to give further details of the story which is not relevant to the point in issue.

(2.) TWO separate investigations went on. Dharamasala P. S. Case No. 151 of 1967 was being investigated into by the Inspector of police under the supervision of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jajpur, who is a member of the regular Police force, while Cuttack Vigilance Police Station Case No. 45 of 1967 was being investigated into by the Vigilance Police, Cuttack.

(3.) SECTION 4(1)(s) Criminal Procedure Code, defines "police station". "Police station" means any post or place declared, generally or specially, by the State Government to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf.