ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 337 M.M.DAS, J. SAROJ KUMAR PANDA -V- STATE OF ORISSA.* JANUARY 11,2010. PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,1988(ACT NO.49 OF1988) – SEC.13(1)(c) (d) & (2) r/w SEC.120-B IPC. Petitioner is the proprietor of a private firm – He can not be implicated for an offence under the P.C.Act. No material to show the commission of offence of conspiracy – No statement showing meeting of mind between the two accused persons – Prosecution failed to make out a case U/s.120-B IPC. – Held, order of cognizance passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar against the petitioner is quashed. (Para 4 & 5) For Petitioner – M/s.P.R.Dash, J.K.Sahoo, K.Raj, S.K.Mohapatra & D.P.Mishra. For Opp.Party – Addl.Standing Counsel. *CRLMC. NO. 2536 OF 2003. In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, who is the Proprietor of J.K. Printers, for quashing the order of cognizance dated 26.7.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 54 of 2002, against him. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused no.1 – Hrusikesh Mallick is the Ex-Secretary of Children’s Literature Committee, Bhubaneswar and is a public servant. He showed undue favour to the accused no. 2 (petitioner herein) by entrusting him to publish 24 nos. of manuscripts of selected writings of eminent writers of the State to be supplied to 12760 numbers of primary schools of the State. The accused no.1 entered into an agreement with the accused no.2 (petitioner) on 28.11.1992 for printing the above books. The petitioner was supplied with papers worth Rs. 8,09,424/- and required amount towards printing charges and other expenses totaling to Rs. 20,80, 151/- (including cost of paper). The petitioner supplied 69, 120 numbers of books worth Rs.5,52,960/- and did not supply the remaining books worth Rs.18,96.960/-. After completion of investigation, charge sheet no. 478 dated 27.12.2000 was submitted for alleged commission of offence under section 120-B I.P.C. read with sections 13 (2) and 13 (1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Mr. P.R. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material available on record to even prima facie show commission of the aforesaid offence by the petitioner, more specifically, offence under section 120-B IPC . None of the ingredients of section 120-B IPC are revealed from the materials collected during the investigation. Mr. Dash 82
INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] contended that offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be alleged against a private person. According to him, even accepting the entire materials produced by the prosecution, no case is made out against the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under the aforesaid sections. 4. The case diary was called for. On scrutiny of the same, it is found that in the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., a Senior Assistant of the office of the Children’s Literature Committee has stated that the petitioner did not supply the remaining books in spite of the reminders. The auditor, who audited the accounts, recommended for recovery of Rs.18,96,960/- from the petitioner. The Secretary of the Children’s Literature Committee, who has given his statements under section 161 Cr.P.C., has stated that the accused –petitioner did not supply the remaining books in spite of the reminders. Other witnesses have made similar statements against the petitioner. There is absolutely no material to show, prima facie, that there was a conspiracy between the petitioner and the accused no.1. The petitioner, being the Proprietor of a private firm, cannot be implicated for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. Since, there is absolutely no material to show the offence of conspiracy to have been committed, as there is no statement showing that there was meeting of mind between the two accused persons and accepting the entire materials collected by the prosecution during investigation does not make out a case under section 120-B I.P.C. against the petitioner, no fruitful purpose will be served in maintaining the order of cognizance impugned in this petition against the petitioner. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 26.7.2002 passed in T.R. No. 54 of 2002 by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar against the petitioner is quashed. The case, however, shall continue as against the other accused person. The CRLMC is accordingly allowed. 83
Page 1 and 2:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 271 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 3 and 4:
SK.IBRAHIM -V- STATE OF ORISSA [B.K
Page 5 and 6:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 275 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 7 and 8:
MIRJA SIDDIK -V- STATE OF ORISSA ju
Page 9 and 10:
23 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 285 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 17 and 18: NITYANANDA BEHERA -V- STATE [S.C.PA
Page 19 and 20: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 289 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 21 and 22: ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 23 and 24: ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 25 and 26: 39 13. In the case of P. J. Chacko
Page 27 and 28: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 297 L.MOHAPATRA
Page 29 and 30: 43 Court in the case of M/s. Thunga
Page 31 and 32: 45 and (c) on account of some mista
Page 33 and 34: “ The High Court held that the re
Page 35 and 36: 49 Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Page 37 and 38: The copy of the Station Diary dt.24
Page 39 and 40: 53 accordingly, investigation was t
Page 41 and 42: 55 lying dead with ligature mark on
Page 43 and 44: 11.40(1974) CLT.977 : (Sahadeb Patn
Page 45 and 46: comparative statement showing perfo
Page 47 and 48: 61 construed according to the plain
Page 49 and 50: 63 11. This Court in Sahadeb Pattna
Page 51 and 52: ules and regulations h) Ability to
Page 53 and 54: INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
Page 59 and 60: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 328 A.S.NAIDU,J
Page 63 and 64: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 332 PRADIP MOHA
Page 67: INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
Page 77 and 78: 91 impression of bias and favourtis
Page 79 and 80: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 348 M.M.DAS,J.
Page 81 and 82: 95 hearing the appeal set aside the
Page 83 and 84: 97 and the parties to the lease are
Page 85 and 86: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 354 R.N.BISWAL,
Page 87 and 88: 101 cargo, which was unfit for ship
Page 89 and 90: 103 This Section stipulates that ap
Page 91 and 92: 105 Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of
Page 93 and 94: 107 further, in the meantime also t
Page 95 and 96: 109 “…… The High Court was of
Page 97 and 98: 111 learned Subordinate Judge on th
Page 99 and 100: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 368 SANJU PANDA
Page 101 and 102: 115 OLR 791 (Sk. Mustafa and anothe
Page 103 and 104: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 372 SANJU PANDA
Page 105 and 106: 119 Rs. 71,74,451/- for repair of t
Page 107 and 108: 121 reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 (A
Page 109 and 110: 123 already quoted and the aforesai
Page 111 and 112: 125 offending truck. The further ca
Page 113 and 114: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 382 B.P.RAY,J.
Page 115 and 116: 129 to any person, or to consent th
Page 117 and 118: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 386 B.P.RAY, J.
Page 119 and 120:
133 testimony of the victim in a ca
Page 121 and 122:
135 relationship of the appellant w
Page 123 and 124:
137 Officer,Bangalore). 3.AIR 1996
Page 125 and 126:
139 restored, only to avoid the ord
Page 127 and 128:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 396 141 B.K.PAT
Page 129 and 130:
143 4.12.1997. The vehicle was insu
Page 131 and 132:
145 vehicle and insurance policy tr
Page 133 and 134:
147 place from the date of sale whe
Page 135 and 136:
149 deemed to have issued to the in
Page 137 and 138:
151 6. On an analysis of Sections 9
Page 139 and 140:
153 the policy purports to cover in
Page 141 and 142:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 410 B.K.NAYAK,
Page 143 and 144:
157 “….. The decision in the ca
Page 145 and 146:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 414 S.K.MISHRA,
Page 147 and 148:
161 the imposition of fine of Rs.50
Page 149 and 150:
163 overtuous regarding sex. Theref
Page 151 and 152:
165 6. The learned trial court, aft
Page 153 and 154:
167 The Opposite parties 2 to 11 ar
Page 155 and 156:
169 3. It is undisputed at this sta
Page 157:
shall dispose of the application on
show all

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?