The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3377 of 2024 Bipin Bihari Dash …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance) Mr.Devashis Panda, Advocate …. Opp. Party Mr.Niranjan Maharana, ASC, Vigilance Order No. 01. CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA ORDER 08.01.2025 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Dhenkanal in T.R. Case No.05 of 2023, whereby his application under Section 227 r/w Section 239 of the Cr. P.C. seeking discharge from the offences cognizance of which has been taken in V.G.R. Case No.3 of 2020 has been turned down. 2. The petitioner is one of the accused in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.17 of 2020. After the investigation, the Vigilance Department has filed the Page 1 of 8 charge sheet in the present case. 3. One Jagamohan Panda (complainant/Decoy) filed a complaint alleging that despite completion of installation of LED lights against work order No.2477, dtd. 22.06.2019 of DRDA his R.A. bills to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- (approx.) were pending clearance with the competent authority.On meeting petitioner to discuss the issue, he had initially demanded a bribe of Rs.32,000/- for passing payment of his R.A. bills, submitted for work done against that work order, the demand was later reduced to Rs.16,000/- which he agreed to pay
Facts
unwillingly. The FIR being Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.17, dated 06.11.2020 was registered, a trap was prepared and the Vigilance trap team proceeded to the DRDA Office, Dhenkanal on 09.11.2022, where the co-accused Sakti Prasad Mohanty was caught red-handed while accepting the illegal gratification of Rs.16,000/- from the decoy who said that he had paid it to co-accused on petitioner’s directions. The complainant and over-hearing witness, proceeded to the DRDA Office, Dhenkanal, where upon finding the petitioner standing in front of the office, the complainant had requested him to pass his bills, in response to which he allegedly asked them to meet him after 2.00 p.m. and again at 3.00 p.m. When he went inside the petitioner’s office alone, he was queried as to whether he had come with the bribe Page 2 of 8 and on his affirmative reply, was asked to hand over it to co-accused who was standing outside. Complainant went outside where the overhearing witness was standing followed by petitioner who identified the co-accused to the complainant and after the co-accused accepted the bribe, pre-arranged signal was relayed on receiving which the rest of the Vigilance trap team including the magisterial witness reached the spot i.e. portico area of DRDA Office and found complainant, petitioner and co-accused were standing there and complainant disclosed that he had given the tainted money of Rs.16,000/- to the co-accused as directed by the petitioner. The hand- washes revealed the co-accused to have handled the bribe money as the solutions of sodium carbonate in which his hands were dipped turned pink in colour and consequently Detection Report was prepared to that effect. 4. The allegation emanating from the charge sheet is that the petitioner, while working as Junior Engineer Estimator (i/c)-cum-Assistant Engineer, DRDA, Dhenkanal in the office of the DRDA, Dhenkanal, has demanded bribe of Rs.16,000/- from the informant and on his behalf, the co-accused has accepted the bribe money. The trap was conducted to apprehend the petitioner red handed. 5. On the basis of the charge sheet dated 28.02.2023 and the documents form part of the Page 3 of 8 charge sheet, the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 12 of the P.C. Act as amended in the year 2018. 6. The petitioner moved an application under Section 239 of the Cr. P.C. seeking his discharge from the alleged offences. Vide impugned order dated 23.07.2024, his application has been turned down by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Dhenkanal.
Legal Reasoning
as to whether prima facie case is made out from the material form part of charge sheet or not. Precisely the trial court has done that ,therefore, no fault could be found from the impugned order. 10. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and also perused the entire charge sheet and the documents form part of the charge sheet. In the light of the same, I have analysed the impugned order. The findings of the learned trial Court on the basis of which the application of the petitioner is rejected is reproduced hereunder for ready refrence: from “On perusal of the record as well as the connected documents, it is found that a trap was laid on 09.11.2020 during which accused Bipin Bihari Dash was caught red handed in the portico area of DRDA Office, Dhenkanal while demanding and accepting the bribe money of Rs.16,000/- the complainant Sri Jagamohan Panda through one Shakti Prasad Mohanty (Civil Contractor) and as per direction of accused Sri Dash, the complainant Jagamohan Panda delivered the bribe money to Shakti Prasad Mohanty and the said bribe money of Rs.16,000/- was recovered from the left side back pocket of wearing full pant of accused Shakti Prasad Mohanty and seized at the spot in presence of witnesses. The right hand and left hand finger tips wash and the cotton wash of the pant pocket of accused Shakti Prasad Mohanty gave positive chemical reaction when it came in contact with sodium carbonate solution confirming of acceptance of tainted G.C. notes by him. It is further found that sanction for prosecution against accused Bipin Page 6 of 8 Bihari Dash was accorded by the Director, P.R. & D.W. Department. Materials on record if gone through, makes out a prima-facie case against both the accused persons which cannot be ruled out completely at this stage. It is settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court will not make a detailed analysis of the evidence proposed to be led by the prosecution but is sufficient if the same makes out a prima-facie case. No meticulous analysis of the evidence is to be addressed at this stage. After going through the entire case record, it is found that admittedly under Letter No.3995, dtd. 01.12.2020, it is replied by the DRDA, Dhenkanal that the present accused-Bipin Bihari Dash has no role in connection with execution of LED light in Dhenkanal District. Similarly, under Letter No.622, the DRDA office has also stated that no order was issued from the office in the name of Bipin Bihari Dash to assist Sri Ajaya Kumar Jena, the then Executive Engineer, DRDA, Dhenkanal. However, at a later stage under Letter No.555, dtd. 25.10.2021, the I.O.-Vigilance asked for clarification regarding the role of the accused-J.E. DRDA in the process of release of final bill under the said work order regarding LED light, wherein the reply was suggested that there is no role of Bipin Bihari Dash in the process starting from tender to release the final bill. But against a comprehensive query submitted by the Inspector, Vigilance CD, Cuttack, it is specifically reported that the accused was allowed to supervise the construction work undertaken in DRDA, Dhenkanal in addition to his own duty. the witnesses Further including the complainant and the overhearing witness shows a prima-facie case against accused Bipin Bihari Dash. So far as accused Shakti Prasad Mohanty is concerned, prima-facie material is there showing receipt of bribe money by accused Shakti Prasad Mohanty at the instance of accused Bipin Bihari Dash. Hence, I found no merit in the petition.” the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of the 161 statements of 11. The present case is a trap case. The evidence forming part of the charge sheet reveals that the trap was validly organized and carried out in accordance Page 7 of 8 with the procedure. The demand made by the petitioner is also found to be supported with the materials on record. The acceptance of the bribe by the co-accused at the instance of the present petitioner is also apparently borne out from the record. 12. At the stage of framing of the charges, the learned trial Court only needs to be satisfied that the prima facie case is made out against the accused on the basis of the materials which form part of the charge sheet. 13. In my considered opinion, the learned trial Court is correct in its approach and on the basis of the observations made by it as reproduced above, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. Hence, no interference is called for. 14. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed. Judge Subhasis (S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 10-Jan-2025 17:52:04 Page 8 of 8
Arguments
Hence, he has filed the present petition. 7. Heard Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking me to the allegation made in the charge sheet and the Detection Report, pointed out that the story put forth by the prosecution is beyond comprehension. He contended that, even if the prosecution’s version is taken at its face value that the bribe money was given in front of the office, in the portico area, which is within the public view during the office working hour without being noticed by any other, are reasonably expected to be present there is totally absurd and not plausible. He has also contended that the materials collected during the course of the investigation relating to making of demand of illegal gratification from the complaint for the alleged physical installation work are found to be insufficient to make out a case of demand against the Page 4 of 8 petitioner. Rather, the letter of clarification given by the Project Director, DRDA Office, Dhenkanal vide letter No.3635, dated 26.10.2021 in response to the query made by the I.O. clearly suggests that the petitioner is no way responsible in the entire process of tender as such the release of the final bill to the informant. There was no occasion for the petitioner to demand the bribe, as he was not in-charge of clearing the bills of the informant as has been alleged by the informant. 8. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner, has also taken me to the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. and also the Detection Report and the seizure list to impress upon the Court that even if all the materials collected by the I.O. form part of the charge sheet taken to be true, no case is made out against the petitioner. 9. Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, on the contrary, contended that this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNS may not venture into the merits of the case and appreciate the evidence collected by the Vigilance Department and filed along with the charge sheet. Mr. Das contended that the entire endeavor of the petitioner is to persuade the Court on the basis of the credible analysis of the statement under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. of the witnesses and the other materials form part of the Page 5 of 8 charge sheet. Under law, the jurisdiction of this Court is forbidden to appreciation of the material which form part of the charge sheet.The court framing charges has only to arrived at the conclusion