CHINAR JAWAHARLAL PATRO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present revision application the petitioner has sought for quashing of an order dated 5. 4. 2008 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T. R. Case no. 119 of 2007/ v. Gr. 122 of 1999, by which, a petition filed by the Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance), cuttack under Section 319 Cr. P. C. came to be allowed and the learned Special Judge came to a finding that, a prima facie case under Sections 7/13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act having been found against the petitioner (who was then working as Motor Vehicle inspector, Cuttack) can be tried together with the co-accused in the pending trial and accordingly, directed for the issue of summons against the petitioner.

(2.) MR. Mund, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been posted as Motor Vehicle Inspector at cuttack in the year 1997. One Md. Siddique submitted a written report on 9. 12. 1997 before the S. P. (Vigilance), Cuttack to the effect that one of the friends of the complainant, namely, Girija Prasanna Pattnaik had applied for issuance of the driving licence before the R. T. O. , Cuttack and in his connection, it is alleged that the complainant met the petitioner who raised the demand of bribe of Rs. 500/- for issuing of such driving licence. It was further alleged that although the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 300/- to the petitioner on 21. 12. 1996, in support of the same, the petitioner did not issue the driving licence and demanded the balance amount of Rs. 200a for release of the driving licence. On the basis of such complaint, Cuttack Vigilance P. S. Case No. 73 dated 9. 12. 1997 was registered. It appears that after registration of the case, a trap was laid against the petitioner and it is further alleged that the tainted money of Rs. 200a was made over by the petitioner to his peon, one Noor Khan after accepting the same from the complainant. After conclusion of the investigation, the investigating agency sought for the sanction of the Government for prosecuting the accused persons but the Government in its order No. 28120 dated 25. 9,1998 refused to accord sanction as it found that the present case was not fit case to sanction prosecution under Section 19 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It further appears that the investigating agency made a second request to the Government for sanction against the petitioner but the Government once again refused to reconsider the matter and communicated its decision under cover of its letter no. 33143 dated 9. 11. 1999.

(3.) FROM the pleadings, it further appears that after the refusal of the Government to accord sanction of the prosecution against the petitioner, yet the investigating agency went ahead and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner as well as one Noor khan. The Public Prosecutor vide petition dated 12. 8. 1999 prayed for two months time to obtain necessary sanction since they had already approached the Government to reconsider the matter of refusal of sanction. Thereafter, on the Government's refusal to reconsider the matter, it appears that a further petition was filed by the public prosecutor on 29. 3. 2000, intimating the learned counsel that sanction for prosecution against the petitioner could not be obtained from the Government, who instead, recommended Departmental Proceeding against him and accordingly, prayed for continuation of action against other accused, i. e. , noor Khan. Consequently, the learned Special Judge vide order dated 16. 5. 2000 took cognizance of offence against the accused noor Khan and did not take cognizance against the petitioner.