Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 56 (ORI)

Smarana Shankar Mishra v. State Of Odisha

2020-02-19

A.K.MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT A. K. Mishra, J. - In this revision U/s.401 Cr.P.C. the revision petitioner has assailed the legality of the order dtd.22.10.2019 of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna in G.R. Case No.06 of 2016 (V) wherein the petition of the petitioner accused to discharge him U/s.227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected and order to frame charge has been passed. 2. The informant, a 'C' Class Contractor alleging illegal demand of bribe by accused, Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Bhawanipatna for payment of bill, lodged an F.I.R. on 13.01.2016. A trap was arranged and laid on 14.01.2016 at 7.15 P.M. Eighty numbers of five hundred rupees GC notes were detected from the drawer of petitioner's office. The statement of the witnesses were recorded U/s.164 Cr.P.C. In course of investigation, it was detected that accused had demanded bribe to prepare final bill in favour of informant in respect of a work No.II of No.39PI/2015-16 which was already executed by one Laxmikanta Nayak and thereby to misappropriate the public money by making a false bill. After obtaining sanction, charge-sheet was filed basing upon which cognizance was taken U/s.13(2), read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 25.09.2019, the accused petitioner filed a petition U/s.227 Cr.P.C. of which rejection order is in question in this revision. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. D. P. Dhal for the petitioner submitted that as informant Prafulla Chandra Gouda was already paid final bill on 02.01.2016 after completion of work on 15.11.2015, there was no occasion on the part of accused to demand bribe for payment of bill. For that he relied upon the photocopy of Final Account Bill and receipt vide Ext.4. He further submits that as the case is filed to harass the accused, learned trial court's order is not sustainable being illegal and malicious, and error committed should be rectified in setting aside the same. 4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel (Vigilance) Mr. S. Das submitted that the scope of revision is very limited and the materials on record having disclosed the demand and acceptance of bribe, no interference is called for. 5. Carefully perused the impugned order, F.I.R. and other materials on record. 6. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. S. Das submitted that the scope of revision is very limited and the materials on record having disclosed the demand and acceptance of bribe, no interference is called for. 5. Carefully perused the impugned order, F.I.R. and other materials on record. 6. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The power of quashing the order refusing to discharge U/s.227 Cr.P.C. should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In the decision reported in State of Rajasthan Vrs. Fatehkaran Mehdu, 2017 3 SCC 198 Hon'ble Supreme Court has enunciated the principle in following words:- "26. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference U/s.397 Cr.P.C. at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. 27. Now, reverting to the limit of the scope of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., which vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding." In the case of Asim Shariff Vrs. National Investigation Agency, 2019 7 SCC 148 the Hon'ble Apex Court also held as follows:- "18. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding." In the case of Asim Shariff Vrs. National Investigation Agency, 2019 7 SCC 148 the Hon'ble Apex Court also held as follows:- "18. Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject laid down by this Court, it is settled that the Judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in sessions cases (which is akin to Section 239 Cr.P.C. pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are possible and one of them giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion against the accused, the trial Judge will be justified in discharging him. It is thus clear that while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C., it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the court is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record." 7. Now adverting to the facts of the case at hand, it is found that the demand of bribe was backed by a false bill in respect of a work already executed by another. The impugned order does not suffer from any gross error or perversity. Uncontroverted allegation establishes the offence prima facie. A grave suspicion is disclosed from the detection of tainted money after trap was arranged and laid which is an act of confirmation in this nature of case. Because of the above, this court does not feel it proper to invoke revisional jurisdiction to make any interference in the impugned order. In the result, the revision stands dismissed.