Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 424 (ORI)

D. K. Singh v. State of Orissa

2018-04-17

J.P.DAS

body2018
JUDGMENT J.P.DAS, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 27.02.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance),Jeypore in V.G.R. Case No.29 of 2002 arising out of Berhampur Vigilance Case No.29 of 2002 framing the charges against the petitioners and another under Sections 13 (i) (d)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 420/477-A/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘IPC’. 2. The backdrop of the case in brief is that one Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rayagada on his own information drew up the F.I.R. with the contentions that it was decided by the Government to start Orissa Tribal Development Project ( in short the ‘OTDP’) at Kashipur in the district of Rayagada. It was decided to purchase OPC 43 Grade of IDCOL Cement from the authorized dealers and supply the cement to the contractors for construction. Accordingly the tenders were invited and the cost of OPC 43 Grade IDCOL Cement per bag was fixed to Rs.134/- inclusive all taxes. During the period from, 01.04.1997 to 14/11/1997, one Shri Sudhansu Sekhar Nayak, Junior Engineer was in-charge of the stores of OTDP. The present petitioners were the suppliers chosen in the process of tender. The petitioner No.1 had supplied the 10,000 bags of OPC 43 Grade of IDCOL Cement at the rate of Rs.133/- per bag and had received Rs.13,36,000/- towards its cost. Similarly, the petitioner No.2 had supplied 40,000/- bags of cement and had received Rs.53,44,000/- towards cost. The informant alleged that in course of enquiry, it was found out that both the petitioners had not lifted nor purchased a single bag of OPC 43 Grade of IDCOL Cement either from any IDCOL dealer or from any other firm. They also failed to produce any document to show that they had lifted such cement from any source for supplying to OTDP. Thus, it was alleged that both the petitioners instead of supplying the specific OPC 43 Grade of IDCOL Cement had supplied Slag Cement, which was of much lesser quality and value by managing to obtain false certificate land took away the amount, thereby causing loss to the State exchequer. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the cognizance was taken for the offences and charges were framed subsequently as aforesaid. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the cognizance was taken for the offences and charges were framed subsequently as aforesaid. 3. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court delivered by another Bench in Criminal Revision No.677 of 2008 wherein the other co-accused Sudhansu Sekhar Nayak had been discharged by the judgment dated 23.02.2018. The said Sudhansu Sekhar Nayak was the co-accused, who also stood charged for the same offences along with the present petitioners in the said case. 4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that while considering the case of the co-accused, it was observed by this Court in the other judgment that the statement of the informant relating to supply of Slag Cement in place of OPC 43 Grade of IDCOL Cement by the two suppliers simply based on assumption there being no sufficient material to reach at such a conclusion. Placing a copy of the said judgment, it was further submitted that the Hon’ble Bench has categorically observed that the Investigating Officer has failed to collect any clinching material to proceed against the accused persons and acted in a mechanical manner. It was observed by the Court that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the allegation that two suppliers supplied Slag Cement bags instead of the OPC 43 Grade of IDCOL Cement. It has been held that no case was made out prima facie against the accused as a Junior Engineer, the petitioner in that case, who was in-charge of the stores and charge-sheeted with the allegation that in connivance with the present petitioners, he received the cement of lesser quality and misappropriated the Government money. 5. Going through the materials on record, I do not find any reason to take a different view from what has been taken by another Hon’ble Bench of this Court in reaching the conclusion that the materials as collected and placed on behalf of the prosecution did not make out a prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) (d)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 420/477-A 120-B, I.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.02.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Jeypore in V.G.R. Case No.29 of 2002 framing the charges against the petitioners is set aside and the petitioners are discharged from the offences as alleged. Revision allowed.