STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MANAGOBINDA SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present application filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C, leave has been sought for to file an appeal against the order and Judgment of acquittal dated 31.5.2000 passed by the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Jaipur in Vigilance G.R. Case No. 98 of 1997.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, according to the Learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department, the prosecution case is that on 30.9.1997 at about 2.45 P.M. the Vigilance Raiding Party raided the business premises of the accused and on physical verification of stock of distribution register were produced but no stock register of both sugar and kerosene could be produced.

(3.) MR . Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department raised various grounds and laid stress on the observations of the Learned Trial Court in paragraph -II thereof where the Learned Trial Court came to conclude that 'however, from the facts of the case the evidence led there seems some negligence in matters of maintenance of registers and display of the price board etc.' Mr. Mohapatra submits that this finding itself is adequate for the purpose of prosecution and should not have been ignored. Apart from that Sri Mohapatra gives much stress on the evidence of P.W.7 -Inspector of police (Vigilance) who is a member of the Raiding Party.