AKHAYA KU BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above noted revisions have been filed questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 24.8.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge Vigilance, Cuttack in T.R. Case No.28 of 2015 arising from Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.57 of 2008 as at Annexure-10. By the said order, the court below has taken cognizance of the offence under section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short, 'the P.C.Act') punishable under section 13 (2) of the said Act and under section 468/420/120-B Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'), and issued the process against these petitioners including the other accused, namely, Ramesh Kumar Mohanty.

(2.) The background facts relating to the case are as follows:

(3.) In the meantime, on 30.12.2008 when those proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. vide CRLMC Nos.2815, 2826 of 2008 and CRLMC No.317 of 2009 were pending before this Court, the Inspector of Police Vigilance, Cuttack lodged another FIR giving rise to Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.57 of 2008 against these petitioners and another, namely, Ramesh Kumar Mohanty, the then Executive Engineer attached to CDA, who had been arraigned as an accused in the earlier Vigilance P.S. Case No.47 of 2008 and had filed CRLMC No.2815 of 2008. The subject matter concerns with the corruption in execution of the work in relation to plotted development scheme in Sector-10, Bidanasi with the allegation that the officials of CDA, by abusing their official position so as to derive pecuniary advantages, have caused loss to the Government exchequer by recording inflated measurement and accepting the execution of sub-standard work leading to payment of a sum of Rs.16,12,298/- to the contractor. It may be stated here that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, who is none other than Investigating Officer of the subsequent case, i.e, Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.57 of 2008 had filed an affidavit on 2.9.2009 before this Court in CRLMC No.2826 of 2008 alleging sub-standard work and illegal payment of labour escalation. But that affidavit dated 2.9.2009, did not find mention of the factum of lodging of subsequent FIR giving rise to registration of Vigilance P.S. Case No.57 of 2008 and the progress of its investigation nor there was any such hint or indication to that even though one accused, namely, Ramesh Kumar Mohanty was arraigned in the subsequent FIR.