The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.130 of 2014 (In the matter of an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) State of Orissa (Vigilance) ……. Petitioner -Versus- Rama Chandra Jena ……. Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. Sangram Das, Standing Counsel (Vigilance)
Legal Reasoning
this Court in CRLMC No.134 of 2012 has attained finality as same being not challenged by the prosecution, the prosecution is bound by the findings recorded in the judgment and the present respondent entitle to the benefit of the said judgment of this court. Consequently, the opposite party stands entitled to acquittal from all the charges. Therefore, I uphold the impugned order dated 20.11.2013 passed by Addl. Dist & Sessions Judge Cum- Special Judge (vigilance), Keojhar in VGR No 05 of 2002. 8. The CRLREV is accordingly dismissed. …………………. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated The 30th July, 2024/Amit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 02-Aug-2024 11:30:37 Page 7 of 7
Arguments
For the Opp. Party : Mr. L. Bhuyan, Advocate CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 28.06.2024 : Date of Judgment:30 .07.2024 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Keonjhar, in T.R. No.84 of 2011, whereby the sole opposite party has been acquitted. The prosecution is aggrieved by the said acquittal order. Therefore, the prosecution has approached this Court by filing present Criminal Revision. 2. The prosecution case is that one Laxman Kumar Mahakud was the informant. Ac. 2.34 decimals of land of Mouza Jamukundi under Barbil Tahasil vide Plot Nos.600, 601 and 602 pertaining to Khata No.2 stood recorded in the name of one Abhi Mahakud, who happened to be the elder brother of the father of the informant. The informant applied for demarcation of the said land before the Tahasildar, Barbil. Accordingly, on 20.01.2002, the said lands were demarcated by the R.I., Hrudananda Sahu and his peon, the present opposite party. On that day, the informant sought for supply of the trace map and identification copy. But Hrudananda Sahu demanded Rs.300/- as bribe for supply of the same in presence of the present opposite party. Even if, the informant expressed his inability to pay the said amount, Hrudananda Sahu told him to come to his office on 02.02.2002 with the amount. The informant with much difficulty arranged Rs.300/- as bribe money. On 02.02.2002 the informant lodged F.I.R. before the Balasore Vigilance Police Station, which was registered as Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.05 of 2002 Page 2 of 7 against Hrudananda Sahu regarding demand of bribe. After registration of the F.I.R., a trap was laid down and the tainted money was received by the peon, Rama Chandra Jena, which was recovered from him. The opposite party on being challenged disclosed that he received the tainted money of Rs.300/- from the informant as per the instruction of the co- accused Hrudananda Sahu. 3. After completion of investigation, the I.O. filed a closure report against the opposite party and co-accused Hrudananda Sahu. The Vigilance police submitted the Final Report in favour of the opposite party and the co-accused Hrudananda Sahu inter alia stating as under: “Since the amount involved is scanty and conserving the process of detection, the case is referred to accused persons’ authority for regular departmental action for initiating departmental proceeding for award of major penalty which may meet the ends of justice.” After submission of Final Form, the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Keonjhar issued notice to the complainant/informant for filing his objection. In pursuance to the said notice, the informant/complainant filed a memo inter alia stating that he has no objection if the final report is accepted. However, contrary to the stand taken by the Page 3 of 7 informant/complainant and the prosecuting agency, the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Keonjhar refused to accept the final report vide its order dated 27.04.2011 issued notice to the I.O. of the case to explain in what circumstances the closure report was filed. The Superintendent of Police, (Vigilance), Balasore submitted a report. After perusing the report, the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Keonjhar vide order dated 05.09.2011, took cognizance of offences under Sections 13(2),13(1)(d) & 7 of the P.C. Act against the opposite party and co-accused Hrudananda Sahu. The co-accused Hrudananda Sahu assailed the order dated 05.09.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore taking cognizance by filing CRLMC No.134 of 2012 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 09.10.2013 allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceeding inter alia observing as under: “10. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and especially the defects in the process of detection, the I.O. in his wisdom had rightly submitted the Final Form, to the acceptance of which the informant had also no objection. Learned Special Judge (Vigilance) however proceeded on a different footing and held that initiation or Page 4 of 7 pendency of a Departmental Proceeding is not a bar for trial of the petitioner before the criminal court. Learned Special Judge (Vigilance), as found from his order dated 27.04.2011 has not at all taken into consideration the defects in the process of the detection and other inherent improbabilities in the prosecution case which the I.O. by virtue of his experience had the wisdom to sense.” 4. Since the present opposite party was not a party to CRLMC No.134 of 2012, the benefit of the judgment dated 09.10.2013 was extended to him and the trial proceeded against him. The learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.11.2013 by taking into consideration the judgment of this Court passed in CRLMC No.134 of 2012 dated 09.10.2013 with regard to the case of the co-accused Hrudananda Sahu had allowed the application of the opposite party under section 317 Cr.P.C and quashed all the charges against the opposite party by recording as under: “A perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that the accused Hrudananda Sabu filed an application U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. registered as CRLMC No.134 of 2012 before the Hon’ble Court, and as per the order dated 9.10.2013 the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to allow the CRLMC quashing the proceeding of the present case. In the present case charge has been framed against two accused persons namely Rama Chandra Jena and Hrudananda Sahu U/s. 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) & 7 P.C. Act 1988. The accused Rama Chandra Jena was not a party to the aforesaid CRLMC. But vide the order referred to above the Hon’ble Court have been pleased to quash the entire proceeding. Page 5 of 7 Paragraph -10 if the said order may be quoted here below:- “10. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and especially the defects in the process of detection, the I.O. in his wisdom had rightly submitted the Final Form, to the acceptance of which the informant had also no objection. Learned Special Judge (Vigilance) however proceeded on a different footing and held that initiation or pendency of a Departmental Proceeding is not a bar for trial of the petitioner before the criminal court. Learned Special Judge (Vigilance), as found from his order dated 27.04.2011 has not at all taken into consideration the defects in the process of the detection and other inherent improbabilities in the prosecution case which the I.O. by virtue of his experience had the wisdom to sense.” In view of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Court the entire proceeding of the present case is quashed.” 5. The State is aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment whereby while quashing the entire proceeding against the opposite party, the opposite party has been set at liberty. 6. I have perused the judgment of this Court passed in CRLMC No.134 of 2012 and the impugned judgment carefully by scrutinizing the material placed on record which would lead to the only inference that the observation made by this Court in the judgment dated 09.10.2013 was for the benefit of the both the accused. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the application under section 317 Cr.P.C in favour of Page 6 of 7 the opposite party and quashed the entire proceeding. Hence, no interference is called for in this matter. 7. In view of the fact that the judgment dated 09.10.2013 passed by