Back
2008 Supreme(Ori) 382
2008 (II) OLR — 661
B.K. PATEL, J.
Jasobant Narayan Mohapatra and two others...Petitioners
Versus
State of Orissa and two others...Opp. Parties
CRLREV No.1007 of 2007
Decided on 20th August, 2008.
For Petitioners:M/s. G. Mohapatra, P. K. Sahoo, A. K. Mohapatra, S. K. Rout, Mrs. A. Das and S. K. Jena
For Opp. Parties:M/s. S. Das (Addl. Govt. Advocate) for O.P. No.1
Headnote:1. PENAL CODE, 1860 - Secs. 107 to 109 - Abetment - Act complained of in order to amount to abetment has to be committed either prior to or at the time of commission of the offences.
(Para - 11)
2. PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - Sec. 12 - Penal Code - Sec. 201 - Charge under - Revision - Offence of abetment - Disappearance of evidence - Discussing the facts, contention and provisions of law laid down in cited cases held, commission of offence under Sec. 7 of P.C.Act by the co-accused had already been completed long before the petitioners are accused of commission of the alleged acts constituting abetment - Pursuing or pressurizing to compromise does not in any manner have the effect of disappearance of evidence already collected in the vigilance case - Implication of the petitioners under Sec. 201, IPC is misconceived and not tenable in law - Order framing charge under Sec. 12 of the P.C.Act and Sec. 201 of IPC quashed.
Charge framed against the petitioners are challenged not on the ground that there is insufficient evidence or material to support the charge. The charge is assailed as illegal and without material basis on the contention that even if allegations made against the petitioners are accepted on face value, there is no prima facie case allowing scope to frame charge under Section 12 of the P.C. Act and Section 201 of the I.P.C. Such being the nature of challenge made against the impugned order, obviously in case the question raised in the revision is answered in the affirmative, the prosecution against the petitioners is liable to be terminated bringing finality to the proceeding so far as it relates to the present petitioners. Therefore, there is no merit in the preliminary objection raised against maintainability of the revision. The impugned order is not an interlocutory order and the embargo contained under Section 397 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 19(3)(c) of the P.C. Act, not to exercise powers of revision in relation to an interlocutory order, is not applicable to this revision assailing the order of framing charge.
Detection with regard to the offence alleged to have been committed by the co-accused under Section 7 of the P.C. Act was completed before 10.45 P.M. on 5.5.1998. Thereafter, the com¬plainant was dropped in his house in the midnight. The acts alleged against the petitioners constituting offence of abetment are stated to have taken place thereafter only. In such circum¬stances, it is rightly pointed out that the statutory dispensa¬tions in India, as available under Section 12 of the PC Act read with Section 107 to 109 of the IPC, do not permit implication of the petitioners with the offence of abetment of commission of offence under Section 7 of the co-accused. Commission of offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act by the co-accused had already been completed long before the petitioners are accused of commission of the alleged acts constituting abetment.
(Paras - 15 to 21)
3. INTERLOCUTORY ORDER - Interlocutory order has neither been defined in the Cr.P.C. nor in the P.C.Act - What it means, stated.
An order may be final for one purpose and interlocutory for another and final as to part and interlocutory as to part. Any order which substantially affects rights of the accused or de¬cides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be interloc¬utory order so as to bar a revision against that order. An order which is an order of moment for an accused does not come within the ambit of interlocutory order so far as that accused is concerned.
(Para - 8)
JUDGMENT
B.K. PATEL, J. — This revision is directed against that part of the impugned order dated 22.06.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore in T.R. No.95 of 2007 by which charge for commission of offences under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short ‘P.C. Act’) and under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’) has been framed against the petitioners. By the impugned order charge for commission of offences under Sections 7, 12 and 13 (2) of the P.C. Act and Section 201 of the I.P.C. also has been framed against co-accused Nrusingha Charan Rath.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for this revision are as follows :
On the written report of complainant-decoy Ananta Kumar Padhi alleging demand for bribe of Rs.100/- by co-accused Nru¬singha Charan Rath, who was working as A.S.I. of Police, Aradi Out post under Dhusuri Police Station, Balasore, Vigilance P.S. Case No.12 of 1998 was registered on 03.05.1998. The bribe was stated to be demanded by the co-accused in order to take action on a written report lodged by the complainant earlier. In course of investigation into the Vigilance P.S. Case No.12 of 1998, the co-accused was trapped in the evening on 05.05.1998 by the Vigilance Police Officers in the Out Post after he received Rs.100/- from the complainant-decoy. After the trap, the complainant left for his house. It is alleged that the petitioners, who were working respectively as the Officer-in-Charge of Dhusuri Police Station, the A.S.I. of Police of Dhusuri Police Station and the Circle Inspector of Police of Bhadrak (R) during that period, brought the complainant from his house to Police Station where he was assaulted and kept inside the lock up in the night. It is also alleged that the petitioners pressurized and persuaded the com¬plainant for compromise of the Vigilance case, and for that purpose a false case bearing Dhusuri P.S. Case No.37 of 1998 was registered against the complainant for alleged commission of offences under Sections 448, 323, 294 and 354 of the I.P.C. It is alleged that commission of above acts by the petitioners and registration of Dhusuri P.S. Case No.37 of 1998 against the complainant were in order to screen the co-accused from legal punishment in the Vigilance case, and that the petitioners abet¬ted the offence of acceptance of bribe by the co-accused. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was accordingly placed against the petitioners and the co-accused under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1) (d)/7 of the P.C. Act and Sections 201/109/34 of the I.P.C. The learned Court below, upon hearing rival conten¬tions, passed the impugned order.
3. In assailing the legality of the impugned order, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the allegations against the present petitioners are accepted on face value, such allegations do not constitute offences punisha¬ble under either Section 12 of the P.C. Act or Section 201 of the I.P.C. Referring to the statutory requirements for commission of offences punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act and under Section 201 of the I.P.C. as well as judicial pronouncements, it is argued that there is no scope to array the present petitioners as accused persons along with the co-accused in the Vigilance case on the allegation that the petitioners either abetted the commission of any of the offences under which the co-accused stands charged or caused any evidence of the commission of any of the offences under which the co-accused stands charged to disap¬pear with the intention of screening the co-accused from legal punishment.
The learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department vehemently assails the maintainability of the revision against an order of framing charge which is asserted to be an interlocutory order. It is further argued that the petitioners pressurized the complainant by instituting criminal case on false allegations to compromise with co-accused in the Vigi
