Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 554 (ORI)

Noonaram Agrawala v. State of Orissa

2011-11-14

R.N.BISWAL

body2011
JUDGMENT R.N. BISWAL, J 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 1.7.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bolangir in C.T.R. No.16 of 2010 framing charge for commission of offence under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of P.C. Act and Sections 420/471/120 (B) of I.P.C. against him. 2. On 12.7.1996, petitioner entered into an agreement with the Senior Division Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Sambalpur for supply of 1.00 lakh cum of 50 MM size hard stone ballast to their Kantabanjhi depot. He raised 76196.21 cum hard stone ballast from stone quarries, under the jurisdiction of Kantabanjhi and patnagarh Tahasil and supplied the same to the railway authorities. At the rate of Rs.12/- per cum, the petitioner had to pay Rs.9,14,352/- to the revenue authority as royalty towards lifting of the same. On demand of royalty clearance certificate made by the railway authority for releasing his payment, the petitioner furnished royalty clearance certificates bearing Nos. 710 dated 15.4.1997 for 3000 cum, 934 dated 8.5.1997 for 3650 cum and 1800 dated 26.9.2007 for 51247 cum of ballast, issued by the co-accused, Badrinarayan Mishra, the then Tahasildar of Kantabanjhi. The petitioner also furnished money receipt for Rs.1,59,299/- issued by Revenue Inspector, Kantabanjhi towards royalty of the balance quantity of ballast supplied to the railway authority. On the basis of the royalty clearance certificates and the money receipt furnished by the petitioner, the railway authority settled his bill. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the aforesaid royalty clearance certificate issued by the co-accused, Badrinarayan Mishra shows that the petitioner raised the ballast from Debri quarry under Kantabanjhi Tahasil. But during investigation, it was found that the petitioner had not submitted any application in Kantabanjhi Tahasil office for issuance of royalty clearance certificate. He also did not deposit royalty due in respect of which the Tahasildar, Badrinarayan Mishra issued royalty clearance certificate in his favour. However, it was found that the petitioner deposited Rs.1,59,299/- on different dates towards royalty. 4. He also did not deposit royalty due in respect of which the Tahasildar, Badrinarayan Mishra issued royalty clearance certificate in his favour. However, it was found that the petitioner deposited Rs.1,59,299/- on different dates towards royalty. 4. To a show cause notice of the Collector, Bolangir as to how he issued royalty clearance certificate to the petitioner without collecting royalty to the tune of Rs.5,13,219/-, the co-accused, Badrinarayan Mishra explained that petitioner furnished 'K' Form showing payment of royalty to the lease holder, Shri U.R. Patel for raising 51247 cum of ballast from Gahiriamunda stone quarry issued by the then Tahasildar, Patnagarh and he issued clearance certificate without verifying the genuineness of the said Form. During investigation, it was found that no 'K' form was issued from Kantabanjhi Tahasil in favour of the petitioner since Gahiriamunda stone quarry under Patnagarh Tahasil had not come under the jurisdiction of Kantabanjhi Tahasil during the year 1997. Furthermore, Gahiriamunda stone quarry was leased out to one Debijibhai Patel which was subsequently transferred to the name of Khemjibhai Patel. At no time it was leased out to U.R. Patel. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 22.3.2002, the Divisional Railway Manager (Engg.) South Eastern Railway, Sambalpur informed the Tahasildar, Kantabanjhi that am amount of Rs.2,28,763/ was recovered from the work bill of the petitioner and the same was sent in shape of cheque No.B91801 dated 22.3.2002 to the Tahasildar, Kantabanjhi, pursuant to Certificate Case No.22 of 2001 initiated against the petitioner, vide Annexure-3. So, the petitioner cannot be charged under the aforesaid sections. As stated earlier, it is found during investigation that the petitioner furnished royalty clearance certificate bearing Nos.710,934,1800 showing payment of royalty in respect of 57897 cum of ballast but in fact no royalty had been paid in respect thereof. He had paid only Rs.1,59,299/- Payment of Rs.2,28,763/- by the petitioner towards royalty pursuant to the order passed by the Tahasildar, Kantabanjhi (successor of the co-accused) in Certificate Case No.22 of 2001 cannot absolve the petitioner of the criminal liability. The petitioner had to pay Rs.9, 14,352/-. Earlier he had paid Rs.1,59,229/-, subsequently in the certificate case he paid Rs.2,28,763/-, so he had to pay the balance amount. Prima facie it appears that the petitioner and the co-accused criminally conspired and forged documents and used the same for pecuniary gain. The petitioner had to pay Rs.9, 14,352/-. Earlier he had paid Rs.1,59,229/-, subsequently in the certificate case he paid Rs.2,28,763/-, so he had to pay the balance amount. Prima facie it appears that the petitioner and the co-accused criminally conspired and forged documents and used the same for pecuniary gain. Under such circumstances, the order under challenge cannot be interfered with and as such the Criminal Revision stands dismissed. No costs. Revision dismissed.