Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 16 (ORI)

Saroj Kumar Panda v. State of Orissa

2010-01-11

M.M.DAS

body2010
JUDGMENT M.M. DAS, J. — This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, who is the Proprietor of J.K. Printers, for quashing the order of cognizance dated 26.7.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.54 of 2002, against him. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused No.1- Hrusikesh Mallick is the Ex-Secretary of Children’s Literature Committee, Bhubaneswar and is a public servant. He showed undue favour to the accused No.2 (petitioner herein) by entrusting him to publish 24 Nos. of manuscripts of selected writings of eminent writers of the State to be supplied to 12760 numbers of primary schools of the State. The accused No.1 entered into an agreement with the accused No.2 (petitioner) on 28.11.1992 for printing the above books. The petitioner was supplied with papers worth Rs.8,09,424/- and required amount towards printing charges and other expenses total in to Rs.20,80,151/- (including cost of paper). The petitioner supplied 69,120 numbers of books worth Rs.5,52,960/- and did not supply the remaining books worth Rs.18,96.960/-. After completion of investigation, charge sheet No.478 dated 27.12.2000 was submitted for alleged commission of offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. read with Sections 13 (2) and 13 (1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Mr. P.R. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material available on record to even prima facie show commission of the aforesaid offence by the petitioner, more specifically, offence under Section 120-B IPC. None of the ingredients of Section 120-B IPC are revealed from the materials collected during the investigation. Mr. Dash con¬tended that offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be alleged against a private person. According to him, even accepting the entire materials produced by the prosecution, no case is made out against the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under the aforesaid sections. 4. The case diary was called for. On scrutiny of the same, it is found that in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., a Senior Assistant of the office of the Children’s Literature Committee has stated that the petitioner did not supply the remaining books in spite of the reminders. The audi¬tor, who audited the accounts, recommended for recovery of Rs.18,96,960/- from the petitioner. On scrutiny of the same, it is found that in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., a Senior Assistant of the office of the Children’s Literature Committee has stated that the petitioner did not supply the remaining books in spite of the reminders. The audi¬tor, who audited the accounts, recommended for recovery of Rs.18,96,960/- from the petitioner. The Secretary of the Chil¬dren’s Literature Committee, who has given his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has stated that the accused - petitioner did not supply the remaining books in spite of the reminders. Other witnesses have made similar statements against the petitioner. There is absolutely no material to show, prima facie, that there was a conspiracy between the petitioner and the accused No.1. The petitioner, being the Proprietor of a private firm, cannot be implicated for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. Since, there is absolutely no material to show the offence of conspiracy to have been committed, as there is no statement showing that there was meeting of mind between the two accused persons and accepting the entire materials collected by the prosecution during investigation does not make out a case under Section 120-B I.P.C. against the petitioner, no fruitful purpose will be served in maintaining the order of cognizance impugned in this petition against the petitioner. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 26.7.2002 passed in T.R. No.54 of 2002 by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar against the petitioner is quashed. The case, however, shall continue as against the other accused person. The CRLMC is accordingly allowed. CRLMC allowed.