ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 278 B.P.DAS,J. DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.* FEBRUARY 17,2010. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 ( ACT NO.2 OF 1974) – SEC.482. Quashing of F.I.R. – Petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in the F.I.R. – No material to implicate the petitioner – Even after taking the petitioner’s case as in the F.I.R. and the charge sheet on its face value, if the allegations made are accepted and nothing is added there to or substracted there from, no offence is made out against the petitioner. Held, continuance of Criminal Proceeding against the petitioner will amount to miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of Court. (Para 9,10,11) Case laws Referred to:- 1.AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 : (State of Haryana -V-Bhajan Lal). 2.2002 Crl. LJ 132 : (Atique Ahmed -V- State of U.P). For Petitioner - Shri Sanjit Mohanty, Sr.Advocate, with Shri S.P.Panda. For Opp.Parties – Shri S.K.Mund & Shri D.K.Mohapatra, Standing Counsel (Vigilance). *CRIMINAL MISC.CASE NO. 1895 OF 2002. In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. B. P. DAS, J. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( ‘Cr.P.C.’ in short ) has been filed with a prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 23.5.2000, Annexure-1, lodged by Shri Binod Bihari Patel, Inspector of Vigilance, Sambalpur, so far as it relates to the petitioner, under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( hereinafter ‘P.C.Act’ ), which has been registered by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur, as Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.30 of 2000. It may be noted here that during pendency of this application, charge-sheet against the petitioner has been filed. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on 23.5.2000 the Inspector, Vigilance, Sambalpur, lodged the FIR, Annexure-1, alleging the therein that one Anil Kumar Chatterjee while posted as Forest Range Officer, Kuanrmunda Forest Range in Sundergarh district, abusing his official position during 1992-93 had issued number of false Timber Transit Permits 22
23 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORISSA [B.P.DAS,J.] in favour of different persons without any supporting materials thereby putting the Govt. to heavy loss. An enquiry being conducted against said Chatterjee, it was found that he had issued T.T. Permits 53465/65/529/535/3121 dated 6.12.1992 in favour of one D. K. Ray of Puri showing transportation of Sal sizes 103 pieces, teak sizes 153 pieces, teak door 250 pieces, pannel shutters 16 pieces and window shutters 34 pieces stated to have been purchased as per cash memos. of Orissa Forest Development Corporation, Kalunga Saw Mill bearing no.9214/222 dated 23.10.1992. On enquiry, the record of OFDC, Kalunga Saw Mill, however, disclosed that no such cash memo. against which the Range Officer had issued the T.T. Permits had been issued. Similarly the said Range Officer had also issued T.T. Permit No.902/31/546/562 dated 17.3.1993 for 488 pieces of Sal sizes of 230.45 cft. in favour of one B.K.Das from Rourkela to Bhubaneswar against cash memo. of OFDC Kalunga Saw Mill No.926/92515 dated 6.3.1993 and 925/92454 dated 12.3.1993 for a total quantity of 13.419 cft. and 10.159 cft respectively. It is alleged that on the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Annexure-1, the petitioner had been interrogated by the Inspector of Vigilance in the month of January/February, 2007 and his statements were recorded with regard to the allegations made in the FIR. The petitioner had clarified that as Director of the company (Mayfair Groups of Hotel ) he had not purchased any timber in his personal capacity or authorized any person as Director to purchase the same or apply for any T.T. Permits and receive the same. The petitioner has alleged that though the aforesaid prosecution has been launched against A. K. Chatterjee, Forest Range Officer, Kuanrmunda Forest Range, he has been entangled in that case with a motive to malign his reputation and harass him on account of political rivalry. The petitioner was a Member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly having been elected from Rourkela Assembly Constituency and in March, 1990 he had been inducted into the State Cabinet as a Minister of State for Industry and he continued as such till March, 1995. In April, 1996 the petitioner had been elected as a Member of the Rajya Sabha and on 28.6.1996 had been inducted into the Union Cabinet headed by Shri H. D. Devegowda, the then Prime Minister of India. It may be stated here that the petitioner has also filed an application under section 482, Cr.P.C. registered as Criminal Misc. Case No.771 of 2002 praying to quash the FIR dated 28.6.1996 filed against him by the Inspector of Vigilance, Cuttack, under section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (e) of the P.C. Act as well as the Cuttack Vigilance P.S.Case No.53 of 1996 registered by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack. While the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Case No.771 of 2002 was pending in this Court, the present FIR dated 23.5.2000 against A.K.Chatterjee was
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: MIRJA SIDDIK -V- STATE OF ORISSA ju
Page 11 and 12: 25 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
Page 13 and 14: 27 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
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 61 and 62:
INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
Page 63 and 64:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 332 PRADIP MOHA
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?