PARSURAM BHAKTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , an unemployed youth belonging to Scheduled Caste, who claims to be a public spirited person has filed this purported public interest writ application for directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'C.B.I.') to enquire and investigate into the allegations against opp. party No. 4 who served as Collector -cum -District Magistrate, Malkangiri from February 2, 1992 to April 24, 1997.

(2.) IN his application the Petitioner has made certain allegations about the integrity and personal moral character of opp. party No. 4 and alleged illegal activities in giving appointments to various public posts. It has also been alleged that opp. party No. 4 had illicit relationship with a lady who ultimately committed suicide to save herself from ignominy. It is alleged that the then Superintendent of Police wanted to arrest opp. party No. 4 in connection with the said incident of suicide, but ultimately opp. party No. 4 managed to entangle the husband of that lady in a criminal case for murdering his wife. The Petitioner has also sought to connect the alleged illegal appointments with alleged immoral character of opp. party No. 4.

(3.) AS regards the alleged suicide as mentioned in the application, it is seen that F.I.R. was lodged at Mudulipada police station on 16.4.1995 under Section 302 , I.P.C. corresponding to G.R. Case No. 112 of 1995. Father of the deceased Adivari Toki was the informant. The husband of the deceased was arrayed as the accused. There is not even a whisper about involvement of opp. party No. 4. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for opposite parties that in the mean time the trial is over and the accused has been acquitted. Learned Counsel for Petitioner has stated that true picture was not brought out in trial and that is how there has been acquittal. In a criminal case State is the prosecutor which acts on the basis of information given about commission of a cognizable offence. When the informant thought that somebody was the accused and on that basis law was set into motion and trial has been held, it is not open to the third party to say that true picture was not brought on record. The plea that the informant was gained over does not have any foundation, and therefore, the stand of the Petitioner in that regard fails. Moreover, in compliance with the direction of this Court the superintendent of Police, Malkangiri submitted a report on June 20,1998 before the collector -cum -District Magistrate, Malkangiri in which it has been reported that the records in the office of the superintendent of police did not show that there was any proposal to arrest opposite party No. 4 on any allegation.