The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.51 of 2018 Srikanta Prusty …. Petitioner Mr.Devashis Panda, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opp. Party Mr.N.Maharana, ASC, Vigilance CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 09.08.2024 1. In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack in T.R. Case No.10 of 2016, whereby the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the IPC has been taken against the petitioner. 2. The F.I.R. was registered on 30.06.2010, inter alia, alleging that the officials of the DIC, Cuttack showing undue official favour to five fake and non- existent MSME Units and recommended for their empanelment with the OSIC for supply of coal at notified price by the State. The authorities of the Page 1 of 6 Order No. 15. OSIC, in order to show official favour to the accused firms, allowed them to derive undue pecuniary advantage by showing false issue of coal to the said non-existent units. Since the petitioner was the General Manager of the DIC, Cuttack for some period, he has been arrayed as accused in the present case. 3. The investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed on 02.12.2015 against as many as seven accused persons. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, his name appeared in the charge sheet in Column No.2. Hence, he was not charge sheeted for want of valid sanction accorded by the competent authority. 4. The prosecution applied for sanction to prosecute the petitioner under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as Section 197(1) Cr. P.C. However, the Sanctioning Authority declined to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner vide its Office Order dated 07.04.2015. For ready reference, the order dated 07.04.2015 is quoted below: “To Special Secretary to Government G.A. (Vigilance) Department Odisha, Cuttack. Sub- Sanction of prosecution against Sri Srikanta IAS, Ex-General Manager, District in Cuttack Prusty, Industries Centre, Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.44 dt. 30.06.2010. Sir, I am directed to invite reference to your Letter No.3163/Vig. Cell dt. 27.3.2012 on the subject Page 2 of 6 mentioned above and say that after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material evidences on record, Government have been pleased to decline the proposal to accord sanction of prosecution against Sri Srikanta Prusty, IAS, Ex-General Manager, District Industries Centre, Cuttack under Section 197(1) Cr. P.C. in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.44 dt. 30.06.2010. Besides, as material evidences are not strong enough, Government do not feel it necessary to recommend the case to Government of India for consideration of sanction of prosecution against him under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In view of the above, you are requested to take further follow up action accordingly under intimation to this Department. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Officer on Special Duty” 5. Since the competent Authority has declined to give sanction for prosecuting the petitioner, in the charge sheet as against the present petitioner, it is mentioned in Column No.14 that the petitioner has not been charge-sheeted for the reasons as mentioned in Column. 14(XV), which reads as under: “14. (XV) Any Special remarks including reasons for not Charge Sheeting::- The Govt. in G.A. Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar has declined the proposal to accord sanction of prosecution against Sri Srikanta Prusty, I.A.S. Ex-G.M., D.I.C., Cuttack after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material evidences on record and the refusal orders has been issued vide L. No. GAD/SC/CASE/4/0024/8766/Gen. BBSR dt. 7.04.2015 by Officer on Special Duty, G.A. Deptt., Odisha, Bhubaneswar.” Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that despite the admitted position Page 3 of 6 as mentioned above regarding the decline of sanction by the competent authority, the Court below has proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner, which is legally prohibited. 6. Mr. Maharana, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department, although attempted to justify the impugned order, he could not dispute the admitted fact that the competent authority has declined to prosecute the petitioner. He also could not dispute that against this petitioner the charge sheet was also not filed, however, the trial court has taken cognizance. Therefore, submits that this is a peculiar case on facts and interference of this court in the present petition may not be treated as a precedent by the other accused persons. 7. I have perused the impugned order and found that the Court below has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/120-B of the IPC against the petitioner. However, for want of sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, it did not take the cognizance of the offences under the P.C. Act. The trial Court, inter alia, has arrived at a conclusion that, in view of non-according of sanction by the removing authority against the petitioner, although the cognizance of the offence under the P.C. Act as alleged cannot be taken because of the bar contained under Section 19 of the P.C. Act. Yet, as Page 4 of 6 their involvement in the commission of the aforementioned offence of IPC is prima facie established, the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not granted to them as it has no direct nexus with discharge of their official duty. Therefore, even though the competent authority has declined to grant the sanction under Section 197(1) Cr. P.C., the trial Court proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for the penal offences. 8. I am not in agreement with the view taken by the trial Court while taking cognizance against the petitioner for the reason that the prosecution in the present case has not even filed the charge sheet against the petitioner. Alive to the fact that the competent authority has declined to accord the sanction against the petitioner for prosecuting him, either for the offences under the P.C. Act or for that matter offences under the Penal Act, the court below ought not to have taken cognizance. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed and the order of cognizance dated 18.02.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack in T.R. Case No.10 of 2016 arising out of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.44/2010 is set aside. Judge Subhasis (S.S. Mishra) Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 11-Aug-2024 12:40:19 Page 6 of 6