Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 156 (ORI)

Laxmidhar Barik v. State of Orissa

2018-02-05

S.K.SAHOO

body2018
JUDGMENT : S. K. SAHOO, J. 1. Heard Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prem Kumar Pattnaik, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State and Mr. Banamali Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties nos.2 and 3. 2. The petitioner Laxmidhar Barik in this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has challenged the impugned order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., R. Udayagiri in G.R. Case No.123 of 2011 in taking cognizance of offences under sections 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and issuance of process against him. The said case arises out of R. Udayagiri P.S. Case No.33 of 2011. 3. The first information report in the case was lodged by one Bikram Majhi, CSO -cum-District Manager, OSCSC Ltd., Gajapati before Inspector in charge of R. Udayagiri police station, on the basis of which R. Udayagiri P.S. Case No. 33 dated 27.09.2011 was registered under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner who was the Sales Asst. -cum-Godown Asst., R. Udayagiri and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 31.03.2012 under sections 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner and three others namely Rama Chandra Behera, Gobardhan Behera and Rajendra Sahoo. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the enquiry report of the District Manager, OSCSC Ltd., Gajapati dated 22.12.2011 indicates as follows:- “Basing on the report of Sub-Inspector of Police, R. Udayagiri Police Station, the B.D.O., R. Udayagiri raided the Godown on 22.09.2011, verified the physical stock of PDS rice Q.215.50 in 438 bags which tallied with the Books of Accounts of the RRC. After onwards on 23rd September 2011, I also verified the stock of PDS rice Q.215.50 in 438 bags which also tallies with the Stock Register. On 26.09.2011 I along with the local Inspector of Supplies further verified the Rice Stock in RRC intact with the Book Balance. Copy of the verification is enclosed herewith for your kind verification. Due to public complain, on suspect I filled a FIR against Sri Laxmidhara Barik in the R. Udayagiri Police Station on 26.09.2011 with intimation to the Collector, Gajapati and Corporation Head Office.” 5. It is further contended by Mr. Copy of the verification is enclosed herewith for your kind verification. Due to public complain, on suspect I filled a FIR against Sri Laxmidhara Barik in the R. Udayagiri Police Station on 26.09.2011 with intimation to the Collector, Gajapati and Corporation Head Office.” 5. It is further contended by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that no PDS Rice was found in the commander MAX Pickup vehicle when it was seized as per the seizure list Annexure-1 dated 27.09.2011 and when physical stock of PDS rice found inside the Godown tallied with the Books of Accounts and there is no material that there is any misappropriation of PDS rice and the FIR was lodged only due to public complain on suspicion, the submission of charge sheet on the basis of such material and also taking of cognizance by the learned J.M.F.C., R. Udayagiri suffers for non-application of mind and the same should be quashed. 6. Mr. Prem Kumar Pattnaik, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has produced the case diary and on verification of the same, submitted that when the physical stock was verified in the godown, no irregularity was noticed. Mr. Pattnaik further submitted that the rice was not found when the vehicle in question was seized in connection with this case. 7. Mr. Banamali Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties nos.2 and 3 also submitted that no irregularities were noticed during stock verification in the godown. 8. It is apparent that the first information report was lodged on the basis of suspicion and due to public complains. The stock in the godown was verified on three occasions and no irregularities were noticed. No PDS rice was found from the vehicle when it was seized. Thus the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that submission of charge sheet under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and taking of cognizance of such offences by the Court suffers from non-application of mind has got sufficient force. 9. In case of State of Karnataka -Vrs.-L. Muniswamy and Ors. 9. In case of State of Karnataka -Vrs.-L. Muniswamy and Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1489, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble supreme Court referred to section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and held as follows:- “7.....In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature.” 10. Therefore, I am of the humble view that the impugned order is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and as such I am inclined to invoke my inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and in order to prevent miscarriage of justice, the impugned order dated 24.04.2012 relating to taking of cognizance under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and issuance of process so far as the petitioner is concerned, stands quashed. Accordingly, CRLMC application is allowed.