Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 673 (ORI)

Abhiram Pradhan v. State Of Odisha (Vigilance)

2018-07-18

J.P.DAS

body2018
JUDGMENT J.P. Das, J. - This application is directed against the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. 14/9 of 2015/2007 rejecting the application of the present petitioner to discharge him from the alleged offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 420/470/120-B, I.P C., for which the petitioner along with others stood charge-sheeted. 2. The prosecution alleged that the present petitioner along with other accused persons hatched a conspiracy and renewed the licence of one foreign liquor trader for the year 1996-1997 by creating fake and false Treasury Challan without the actual amount being deposited by the trader and thereby misappropriated the Government money to a tune of around Rs. 8,00,000/- (rupees eight lakhs). It was alleged that the trader, who applies for his renewal of licence, should deposit the required amount of money in Bank through treasury challan and present the original copy in the Office, which was Superintendent of Excise, Khurda in this case. Thereafter, the said challan is scrutinized by obtaining the third copy of the challan from the concerned treasury and thereafter the renewal of license is granted. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, it is alleged that the petitioner, who was working as Inspector of Excise, Mobile during the relevant period, was entrusted with the charge of collecting the third copy of the treasury challan from the treasury for maintaining the register and verification in the office but he did not perform his duty and in connivance with other co-accused persons, the licence of the trader was renewed basing on a fake challan submitted by the trader. After the investigation of the allegations by the Vigilance Department, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and seven other accused persons for the offences as aforesaid. 3. Separate petitions were filed by the petitioners to discharge them for the alleged offences and by the impugned order dated 10.01.2017, the said applications were rejected by the learned Trial Court. 4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case without having any role to play in the alleged acts of commission or omission. 4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case without having any role to play in the alleged acts of commission or omission. The main thrust of argument, advanced on behalf of the petitioner, was that the petitioner was never entrusted with the responsibility of collecting third copy of the challan from the treasury and that without proper investigation into the said fact, he has been charge-sheeted by the Vigilance Department merely on an assumption. It was submitted that the petitioner was Inspector of Excise Mobile, Bhubaneswar during the relevant period and he was never entrusted by any office order to collect the third copy of the challan from the treasury. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed certain documents and information's obtained by the petitioner under the R.T.I. Act and submitted that there was no official order to show that the petitioner was entrusted with the said duty for collecting the copy of the challan. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Vigilance Department has registered and charge-sheeted four cases with similar allegations for the relevant period and in three cases, the petitioner has been cited as a witness but he has been made an accused in the 4th case with a mala fide intention to harass him. 5. Per contra, it was submitted by learned counsel for the State Vigilance that the petitioner working as Inspector of Excise Mobile was entrusted with the responsibility of collecting the third copy of the challan from the treasury, which was being obtained to verify the genuineness of the challan submitted by the trader along with his application showing the deposit of amount in the Bank. In the instant case, the petitioner did not collect the challan nor reported its nonavailability in the treasury as a result of which the trader managed to obtain renewal of his license by submitting a false treasury challan thereby defrauding the Government for huge amount of money, which obviously took place due to the connivance and conspiracy of the accused persons. Placing the statements of the witnesses examined in course of investigation, it was submitted on behalf of the State that the present petitioner working as Inspector of Excise Mobile was entrusted to collect third copy of challan from the treasury and having failed to do so, his connivance with the other co-accused was apparent. 6. Placing certain documents and informations obtained under the R.T.I. Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the relevant period, the petitioner had a separate and independent office from the District Excise Office, Khurda and he was no way connected with any act of commission or omission in the District Excise Office. It was further submitted that one Narottam Sahoo, who was working as Excise Inspector was entrusted with the responsibility to collect the triplicate copy of the challan as per one Order No. 1077 dated 20.07.1995. It was also submitted that allegedly defalcated money has been realized from the licensees with interest and hence, there was no loss caused to the State Exchequer. 7. Some statements of other witnesses regarding preparation of register after receipt of treasury challan in the District Office were also placed. Considering the submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner, it was apparent that the materials as have been tried to be placed and highlighted are to be gone into in course of trial on evidence. The relevant office orders, notifications and entrustment of the responsibilities can only be thrashed out in course of trial on the evidence adduced on behalf of either sides. Some information and documents have been obtained by the petitioner under the R.T.I. Act to show that he was not entrusted with the responsibility of collecting the third copy of the challan rather somebody else was responsible for it. Again all these are matters to be considered during the trial but can never be said to be sufficient at the stage of framing of charge to hold that there is absolutely no case against the petitioner so as to be discharged. Similarly, the submissions that on similar allegations four cases were registered and in three cases, the petitioner was not charge-sheeted and was shown as witnesses are also matters to be considered on materials available on record during the trial. Similarly, the submissions that on similar allegations four cases were registered and in three cases, the petitioner was not charge-sheeted and was shown as witnesses are also matters to be considered on materials available on record during the trial. It is the settled position of law that at the time of framing of charge, the Trial Court is required only to find out the materials available on record so as to make out the offence, which, if unrebutted, would lead to a conclusion of guilt. At this stage, the defence available to the accused, cannot be taken into consideration nor any material evidence likely to be produced by the accused in his defence. Challenge to an order of charge or rejection to discharge should be entertained in rare cases to correct the patent error of jurisdiction and not to reappreciate the matter as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. As stated earlier, the statements of the witnesses examined in course of investigation on behalf of the State Vigilance have been placed wherein it has been stated that the present petitioner was responsible to bring the triplicate copy of the challan from the treasury. 8. Considering the materials as placed on behalf of the prosecution and the settled position of law, it cannot be said at this stage that there was absolutely no case against the petitioner so as to discharge him from the alleged offences. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed being devoid of merit.