Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 307 (ORI)

RAMA NARAYAN SAHU v. STATE OF ORISSA

2001-07-13

L.MOHAPATRA

body2001
JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the proceeding in T.R. Case No. 41 of 1988 pending disposal before the Additional Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. From the records it appears that the present Petitioner,and one Xudhistir Mohapatra have been charge sheeted for offences alleged to have been committed u/s 5(2) read with Section 5( 1 )(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 477A and 471 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Against the order taking cognizance under the aforesaid provisions this application has been filed. It appears that cognizance was taken by order dated 5.1.1989. 2. Shri Tripathy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, prays for quashing of the proceeding only on the ground of delay in disposal of the same. He has submitted that though the case was instituted in 1988 till today only one witness has been examined and the case is unnecessarily lingering at the instance of the prosecution. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on a decision of this Court reported in Jogendra Mahanta Vs. State of Orissa, In the said case FIR was lodged on 29.8.1973 and the case was registered in the year 1978. Charge sheet was submitted in 1981 and charges were framed on 5.1.1982. As it appears from 'the judgment, after framing of charge on 5.1.1982 witnesses had not been examined and the application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before this Court for quashing the proceeding on the ground of inordinate delay. This Court relying upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in Chajoo Ram Vs. Radhey Shyam and Another, decisions of this Court reported in P. Chiranjivi Vs. Principal, M. K. C. G. Medical College and Another, and Sri Harekrushna Mahatab Vs. Republic of India, set aside the charge. Reliance is also placed on the decision reported in P. Chiranjivi Vs. Principal, M. K. C. G. Medical College and Another, which has been relied upon in the case of Jogendra Mahanta (supra). Shri Tripathy relying upon the aforesaid two decisions submitted that here is a case where proceeding was initiated in the year 1988 and cognizance was taken on 5.1.1989. It is further submitted that after framing of charge though a decade has passed, only one witness, namely, R.C. Jena has been examined till date. 3. Shri Tripathy relying upon the aforesaid two decisions submitted that here is a case where proceeding was initiated in the year 1988 and cognizance was taken on 5.1.1989. It is further submitted that after framing of charge though a decade has passed, only one witness, namely, R.C. Jena has been examined till date. 3. From the order-sheets maintained by the learned Special Judge it appears that though cognizance was taken on 5.1.1989, charges were framed on 30.4.1991. From 30.4.1991 till 22.6.2001 only 4 witnesses had been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The first witness was examined on 11.11.1993, whereas the second witness was examined on 25.2.1999, third witness was examined on 15.4.1999 and the fourth witness was examined on 30.9.1999. Learned Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department is not in a position to say as to why no witness could. be examined between November, 1993 and, February, 1999. No explanation is also forthcoming from the side of the Vigilance Department why in spite of several adjournments granted by the learned Special Judge, witnesses could not be produced for examination for such a long time. As is evident from the order-sheets, from the date of framing of charge almost ten years have passed and in the last ten years time though on all occasions the accused-petitioner was present, the case was being adjourned time and again, except on four occasions when four witnesses were examined. The allegation against the Petitioner is misappropriation of Rs. 1,270/- and falsification of accounts. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceeding in exercise of inherent power. I am fully satisfied that further continuance of the proceeding would be an undue harassment to the Petitioner and would not achieve any public purpose. I, therefore, quash the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner.