The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.731 of 2024 (In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India). Swagat Kumar Sahu … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. S.P.Das, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr.N.Moharana, ASC (Vigilance) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF JUDGMENT:30.07.2024 G. Satapathy, J. 1.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr.Sidharth Prasad Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Niranjan Moharana, learned ASC for Vigilance Department and perused the record. 2. The sole grievance of the petitioner is for a direction to the State-Respondents to complete the investigation in a time bound manner taking stringent action against the culprits with needful protection to the petitioner. 3. In the course of hearing, Mr.Das by bringing to the notice of this Court the order passed CRLMP No.731 of 2024 Page 1 of 6 by this Court on 16.10.2023 in CRLMP No. 1647 of 2023 submits that the result of the enquiry conducted by the opposite party-Vigilance Department has not been communicated to the petitioner and since the opposite party are not taking proper steps in registering a case against the accused persons, necessary direction may kindly be issued to register a case against the accused persons and proceed against them. 4. Mr.Moharana, however, by producing the written instruction received from Inspector of Police, Vigilance Berhampur Division submits that on the allegation of the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted, but no material was found to proceed against the accused Headmaster and other Teachers of City High School, Berhampur. Mr.Moharana further submits that since the prayer of the petitioner is not cognizable by this Court, the present CRLMP may kindly be dismissed. The written instruction be kept on record. 5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears no dispute that the present petitioner is a private person who has made a complaint against the accused persons who are the Headmaster and Teachers serving in City High School, Berhampur, but law is very clear that before proceeding with the CRLMP No.731 of 2024 Page 2 of 6 investigation in the case against the proposed accused persons, sanction/approval is required as contemplated in Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. Further, to entertain a complaint of a private complainant against the public servant for charges of corruption, sanction is required in terms of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as held by Apex Court in Anil Kumar and others Vrs. M.K.Aiyappa and another; (2013) 10 SCC 705 wherein in a similar matter where the private complainant has made an application before the concerned Court to refer the complaint against the public servant U/S. 156(3) of CrPC, it was held by the Apex Court that once it is noticed that there was no previous sanction, the Magistrate cannot order investigation against a public servant while invoking powers U/S. 156(3) of CrPC. In laying down the above legal principle, the Apex Court has reiterated what has been spelt out in State of Uttar Pradesh vrs. Paras Nath Singh; (2009) 6 SCC 372 and Subramanian Swamy vrs. Manmohan Singh and another; (2012) 3 SCC 64. 6. Further, in Anil Kumar(supra), the Apex Court in Paragraph-11 has also observed as under:- “where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or CRLMP No.731 of 2024 Page 3 of 6 Section 200 of CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter U/S. 156(3) of the CrPC against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient”. 7. Further, the precedent of Anil Kumar(supra) has been subsequently followed in the decision in L.Narayana Swamy vrs. State of Karnataka and others; (2016) 9 SCC 598, wherein the Apex Court has held that an order directing further investigation U/S. 156(3) of CrPC cannot be passed in absence of a valid sanction. The same legal position still holds the field, of course, in another matter the issue has been referred to a larger Bench in Manju Surana vrs. Sunil Arora and others; (2018) 5 SCC 557 which is yet to be answered and, therefore, the law laid down in Anil Kumar(supra) still holds the field. In this case admittedly, no sanction has been obtained to proceed against any of the accused persons, so also no FIR has yet been registered against them. Besides, the written instruction as supplied by learned ASC, Vigilance discloses that on the grievance of the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance CRLMP No.731 of 2024 Page 4 of 6 Department, but the allegations leveled by the petitioner was found to be untrue, even the petitioner could not throw any light regarding the misappropriation of cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- by anybody. Further, it is also stated in the instruction that before the aforesaid enquiry by the Vigilance, the DEO, Ganjam also got the matter enquired by a team constituting two Headmistress of other schools namely, Dr.Pravati Kumar Mohapatra and Smt. Chandini Panda, who submitted a joint enquiry report to DEO, Ganjam by concluding that they did not find any evidence any financial irregularities by the HM & staff of the school in question. It is further stated that in the enquiry by the Vigilance, the present petitioner stated that he has no knowledge about the cheque of Rs.10,00,000/-, but after hearing information from one Simanchal Tripathy, the Classical Teacher of City High School, he has filed the petition, however, the petitioner could not produce any document to substantiate the allegation of corruption against the HM & staff of City High School. It, thus, appears to the Court that the petitioner is set up by another person to bring this allegation against the Govt. officials of the school. In the aforesaid situation, the allegations leveled by the petitioner seem to be his personal vendetta and appears to be motivated, but CRLMP No.731 of 2024 Page 5 of 6 such arm-twisting method appears to be adopted by the petitioner is not appreciable and strongly deprecated. 8. In view of the above facts and discussion made hereinabove and taking into account the law laid down by Apex Court in Anil Kumar(Supra) and regard being had to the written instruction as produced by Mr.Moharana, this Court does not find any merit in the CRLMP. 9. Accordingly, the CRLMP stands
Decision
dismissed on contest, but no order as to costs. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 30th day of July, 2024/Kishore Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Aug-2024 11:17:02 CRLMP No.731 of 2024 Page 6 of 6