Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 275 (ORI)

ISWAR CHANDRA BEHERA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2003-04-04

L.MOHAPATRA

body2003
MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who was working as a B. D. O at the relevant time has filed this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. challenging the order dated 8/4/2002 passed by the learned C. J. M. , Sambalpur in Sambalpur Vigilance G. R. Case No. 3 of 1999 (1-99) rejecting the petition dated 27/7/2001 filed by the petitioner to drop the proceeding against him after recalling the order taking cognizance. ( 2 ) FROM the averments made in the petition, it appears that the petitioner is one of the accused persons in the aforesaid case which has been registered for commission of offences under Sections 409, 471, 120-B of the Penal Code. After submission of chargesheet for commission of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and some other accused persons, the learned C. J. M. took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. The case of the petitioner, has stated in the petition, is that he was serving as Block Development Officer, Banarpal Block and the allegation against him is that he in connivance with the Junior Engineer and village level worker of the Block prepared false records in favour of certain beneficiaries showing false payments to them for digging wells on their plots under the million well scheme of the Government and mippopiiatd Gemment money in that process. It is also alleged that the petitioner advised the other two accused persons to show false spot verification and measurement of such work and on the basis of such false reports he has endorsed check measurements and passed the payment orders. According to the petitioner, under the scheme, the V. L. W is supposed to visit the spot and upon his reports the concerned Junior Engineer was required to conduct the measurement and recommend the same to the B. D. O for check measurement and payment. On the basis of such records prepared by the other accused persons, the petitioner having made the endorsements, no offence was committed by him. ( 3 ) SHRI Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the order basically on two grounds which are as follows: (1) The endorsement and payment orders made by the petitioner were on the basis of two reports submitted by the other two accused persons, who are under the scheme, required to make spot visit and recommend for payment. The nature of job under the scheme so far as the petitioner is concerned, is supervisory and, therefore, having acted in good faith, the petitioner cannot be held liable for commission of the offences as alleged. (2) The endorsement and payment orders having made in due discharge of official duty, the learned C. J. M. could not have taken cognizance in absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the chargesheet itself indicates the role playel by the prusent pdfrner in mappiopriatbn ctgvemmeit finth in conniarxr with the cihertw accusal Iosxs and therefore, t cannct be k1 that The wand ctthe flone was only supervisory in nature and 1e had acted in gxxl faith. So far The alrxr cd rx1tn anenal, The lemed Stanchng Corsd submittal that mippopiatbn andgyvenimeitfijnds can neie be k1 t be in duc candharge ofoffidal duty and thewore, no rx1n rcesry rifly hell by The amed CJ. M. ( 4 ) A copy of the charge-sheet was produced before the Court at the time of hearing. The brief history narrated in the charge-sheet indicates as follows: during the relevant time the petitioner was working as B. D. O. , Banarpal Block and the other two accused persons were working as Junior Engineer and V. L. W. respectively. During the relevant period allotment had been received under the million well scheme to provide dug well to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe beneficiaries on their recorded land for irrigation purpose at the cost of Rs. 12,570/- per well on 100 subsidy basis. Under the scheme the beneficiaries should have atleast 50 decimals of agricultural land. The petitioner and the other two accused persons prepared false case records in favour of the beneficiaries mentioned in the charge-sheet. The records were prepared indicating visit to the spot where the wells were shown to have been dug and such records were placed before the present petitioner by the other two accused persons. The petitioner also endorsed check measurement certificate in each case records and passed payment orders. During investigation, the investigating agency found that the check measurement endorsements were made without verification and the endorsements with regard to payment were also found to be false. The petitioner also endorsed check measurement certificate in each case records and passed payment orders. During investigation, the investigating agency found that the check measurement endorsements were made without verification and the endorsements with regard to payment were also found to be false. As an example, though beneficiaries as indicated in the documents such as Kunia Behera and his brother were shown to have been paid Rs. 12,570/- each, during inquiry it was revealed that the petitioner had given Rs. 1,400/- only to them for repair of the old well dug about 5 to 6 years back and misappropriated the balance amount. It also appears from the charge-sheet that though under the scheme a beneficiary is required to have atleast 50 decimals of agricultural land, it appeared that the persons who were shown to have been paid the money did not ftilfil the requirement of the scheme in order to get the benefit of the scheme. ( 5 ) IN view of the materials indicated in the charge-sheet, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that he had passed orders for payment on the basis of records placed before him by the other two accused persons in good faith. As it appears from the charge-sheet, the petitioner as B. D. O. was also required to make the check measurement and instead of doing so, he appears to have made false endorsement with regard to check measurement. At least from the charge-sheet, it appears that the two beneficiaries namely, Kunia Behera and his brother had been given Rs. 1,400/- each for repair of the old well and in the record it has been shown that they have been paid Rs. 12,570/- each for digging well. I, therefore, find prima fade case against the petitioner for commission of the offences as mentioned earlier. ( 6 ) SO far as the second ground of attack is concerned, there is no dispute that sanction under Section 197, cr. P. C. can be obtained at any stage of the proceeding provided the act alleged comes within the perview of due discharge of official duty. ( 6 ) SO far as the second ground of attack is concerned, there is no dispute that sanction under Section 197, cr. P. C. can be obtained at any stage of the proceeding provided the act alleged comes within the perview of due discharge of official duty. Preparing false records and making false endorsements in Government records as alleged by the prosecution cannot come within the perview of due discharge of official duty and, therefore, I have no reason to differ with the learned C. J. M. that considering the nature of the allegation made against the petitioner no sanction under Section 197, Cr. P. C. is necessary at this stage. ( 7 ) IN view of the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this case and the same stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.