Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 312 (ORI)

Krishna Chandra Mishra v. State of Orissa

2005-05-06

I.M.QUDDUSI

body2005
JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. : This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 22.6.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur in G.R.Case No. 5 (Vig.) of 1998 taking cognizance against the petitioner, Krishna Chandra Mishra for the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 420/467/120-B, IPC. 2. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigi¬lance Department submitted that Shri S.K.Mishra, Collector, Gajapati received a grant of Rs. 45,00,000 (Forty five lakhs) from DRDA (District Rural Development Agency), Ganjam, Chhatrapur under JRY (Jawahar Rojgar Yojana) for Horticulture Plantation Project. The target group under TRY is people below the poverty line satisfactorily under S.C. and S.T. category. On 16.9.1993 one of the co-accused Shri Jagannath Sahu, Chief Executive of N.G.O., namely SERVE moved an application before the Collector, Gajapati asking him to allot money for horticulture plantation already taken up by the N.G.O. in Kasinagar Block area. On the same date Shri S.K.Mishra, Collector marked the letter to the P.A.I.T.D.A., Paralakhemundi and on the same date suggestions for sanction of Rs. 2,11,650/- was submitted by one of the co-accused Nityananda Nayak, OAS-I, PA, ITDA and on the next date, i.e. on 17.9.1993 the said amount was paid to the co-accused Jagannath Sahu, Chief Executive of SERVE on 17.9.1993 in presence of Co-accused Tirupati Panigrahi and Shri Nityananda Nayak, P.A.I.T.D.A. Before execution of the agreement with SERVE 16 nos. of cases were filed before the Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi for granting permission u/s 22 of the OLR Act for transfer of land from tribal to family members of Tirupati Panigrahi at Vill-Siali/K.G.N.Petta under Kasinagar Block. The cases have been disposed of on 3.8.1993 and 7.8.1993 (two days) by Shri Krushna Chandra Mishra, OSA (I), Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi (accused petitioner) granting permission for alienation of tribal land vide OLR Case Nos. 14 to 17, 19, 20 to 26, 35 to 38 and 28 of 1993. Out of the 16 S.T. persons, 3 persons were permitted to transfer their land to other caste people, which was reported to be false and fabricated one submitted by one Sri Siba Prasad Padhi, Revenue Inspector, one of the co-accused. But without scrutiny the same were taken into consideration by the accused-petitioner. Out of the 16 S.T. persons, 3 persons were permitted to transfer their land to other caste people, which was reported to be false and fabricated one submitted by one Sri Siba Prasad Padhi, Revenue Inspector, one of the co-accused. But without scrutiny the same were taken into consideration by the accused-petitioner. Since on verification it was found that those 3 persons were not having any landed property, a criminal case was registered and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed in which the petitioner has been shown as a co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited O.L.R. Revision Case No. 72 of 1994 decided on 15.7.1995 and the order dated 18.4.2005 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13097 of 2004 in support of his contentions. 4. Since charges have not been framed so far and before framing of the charge it is mandatory to provide opportunity of hearing to the accused persons, it is to be seen whether any charge has been made out against the accused-petitioner or any of the co-accused has made out anything against the accused-petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, it will be proper that all the documents to show that no charge is made out against the petitioner, should be filed before the trial Court and the trial Court will do well to consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage in exercise of its power conferred to it under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 5. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the trial Judge, i.e., learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur that in case the petitioner files documents or moves an application that no case is made out against him, the same shall be considered before the stage of framing of the charge and reasoned order shall be passed thereafter. However, it is made clear that this Court has neither observed anything on merits nor directed the Court concerned to admit the documents produced by the learned counsel for the defence/petitioner. 6. The Court below shall also make an endeavour to con¬clude the trial as expeditiously as possible. The Crl. Misc. case is disposed of. A free copy of the order be supplied to the learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department. 6. The Court below shall also make an endeavour to con¬clude the trial as expeditiously as possible. The Crl. Misc. case is disposed of. A free copy of the order be supplied to the learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department. Crl. Misc. Case disposed of.