PRASANT KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order arises out of the application under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C." for brevity) for transfer of T.R. Case No.68 of 2011 arising out of Vigilance G.R. Case No.17 of 2009 corresponding to Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.17 of 2009 from the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Angul to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack on the ground that the offences were allegedly committed and the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack.

(2.) On 08.05.2009, the informant submitted a written report before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack Division, Cuttack alleging that the petitioner has demanded a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as bribe for inspection and issuance of inspection report of 11 numbers of electrical lines and transformers of different companies i.e. 25KVA of Bharati Infratel Ltd., ATC Tower Co. Ltd., Excel Telecom Pvt. Ltd., Vodafone etc. at various places of the districts of Cuttack, Angul, Jagatsinghpur and Kendrapara. During the investigation, a trap was laid on 09.05.2009 at room no.217 of Hotel Urmee, Bhubaneswar and the case was proceeded on the allegation of demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.1,10,000/- from the complainant for which the prosecution case was set into motion and the petitioner was forwarded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, who committed the case to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack. Charges were framed under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the P.C. Act" for brevity) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack. The petitioner faced trial and the complainant was examined and deposed, and his deposition has already been recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack. In the midst of the trial, the matter was transferred to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Angul though all the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet are residents of Cuttack except the Investigating Officer. The petitioner has also engaged a Lawyer from Cuttack. Because of the transfer of the case at the midst of the trial, the petitioner has to approach this Court for re-transfer of the case to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack.

(3.) The petitioner asserted that the F.I.R. was registered in Cuttack and the part of the investigation i.e. preparation of the reports both pre-trap and post-trap were made in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack. Most of the witnesses have their addresses at Cuttack. Moreover, it was submitted that whenever the case is fixed at Angul, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner are facing immense resistance from the members of the local Bar. Because of their hostile attitude, there is serious and dangerous threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner and his counsel and, therefore, there is a very bleak chance of fair trial.