ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

25
DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORISSA [B.P.DAS,J.]
5. Though the prosecution has taken the aforesaid stand, fact remains,
during pendency of this application charge-sheet has been filed arraying the
petitioner as an accused. Therefore, the ground taken by the prosecution
that this application under section 482, Cr.P.C. challenging the FIR is not
maintainable since the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused in the
FIR absolutely does not hold good. As the charge-sheet was filed on
15.5.2007, the aforesaid point was not available to be urged in the written
notes of submission filed, after the charge-sheet was filed, on 10.7.2007.
Even though charge-sheet was submitted by then, this aspect was
overlooked by the learned counsel for the prosecution.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the chargesheet
wherein it is stated thus :-
“During investigation, a case U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), P.C. Act,
1988/120-B IPC and Section 21 of Orissa Timber and Other Forest
Produce Transit Rules, 1980 has been well established against the
accused persons, Sri Anil Kumar Chatterjee, Forest Range Officer,
Kuarmunda Range, Sri Dillip Kumar Ray, Ex-Hon’ble Minister of
State, Industries, Sri Bishi Keshan Dash and Sri Ramsaya Pandey.
Since Sri Chatterjee has retired from Govt. service, no sanction of
prosecution is required for his trial. Sri Bishi Keshan Dash and Sri
Ramsey Pandey being private persons, no sanction is also required
for their trial. His Excellency Governor of Orissa has been requested
to accord sanction as required U/s 19(2) of P.C. Act-1988 for
prosecution of Sri Dillip Ray, the Ex-Hon’ble Minister of State,
Orissa, Bhubaneswar. However, awaiting sanction of prosecution
against Sri Dillip Ray, the present Hon’ble M.P. Rajya Sabha, I
submit C.S. No.15 dt.11.5.2007 U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), P.C. Act,
1988/120-B IPC/21 Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit
Rules, 1980 against all the accused persons noted above to stand
their trial in the court of law.”
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew my attention to the
statement of one A.C. Dinakar, IFS, D.F.O., Sundargarh, recorded during
the investigation under section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein he has stated that A. K.
Chatterjee was not authorized to issue the T.T. Permits and further that said
Chatterjee had also not submitted or enclosed any application in Form No.II
or bill or challan or cash memo. along with the duplicate copies of the T.T.
Permits. Basing upon the aforesaid statements of Shri Dinakar, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is an admitted fact that the
petitioner had never made any application for T.T. Permit and/or removal of