SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Ori) 449

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Rama Chandra Rath – Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa – Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No. 915 of 2010
Decided On : 16.7.2014

Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner: M/s. D.P. Dhal, S.K. Tripathy, S.K. Dash, B.S. Dasparida, S.D. Routray.
For Opposite Party: M/s. Savitri Ratho, Standing Counsel (Vigilance).

Headnote:PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) and Section 7 - Cognizance under - Revision - Magistrate or the Court taking cognizance of the offence has no power to take cognizance of offence as we as the jurisdiction to direct further investigation - Whether the Court can specifically direct the investigating agency by writing a letter to it to obtain sanction in the case and file charge sheet? - Giving sanction for prosecution is the exclusive domain of the authority - Court cannot issue mandatory direction for according sanction - In the present case the conduct of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) in directing to obtain sanction and letter written to the S.P. of Vigilance to obtain sanction has put pressure on the sanctioning authority and therefore, the discretion of the sanctioning authority not to sanction was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution - Order set aside - Petitioner discharged from the charge.

       (Paras 10 to 12)

       

JUDGMENT

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. The petitioner being the accused in V.G.R. No. 13 of 2007 of the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore assails the order dated 15.4.2010 passed by that Court taking cognizance of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the P.C. Act) and issuing process against the petitioner.

2. The facts are not in dispute. It may be summarized as follows:-

On 27.4.2007, Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007 was registered under Section 7 of the P.C. Act on the information of One Rounak Bibi against the petitioner Ram Chandra Rath, ASI of Police, Permitghat Outpost, Balasore for demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 500. The informant has stated that she had lodged FIR and Balasore P.S. Case No. 40 of 2007 has been registered. Investigation of the case was entrusted to the accused-petitioner. The petitioner demanded bribe to make a strong against the accused persons in the case. H.K. Behera, DSP of Vigilance, Balasore was directed to take up investigation. On 27.4.2007, a trap was laid and in presence of overhearing witness, the petitioner accepted bribe from the complainant. Thereafter, the Vigilance Police arrested him and on 28.4.2007, the accused was forwarded to the Court. On 3.5.2007, he was released on bail. On 29.8.2007, statement of overhearing witness Puma Chandra Sethi was recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. by the learned JMFC, Balasore. On 20.9.2007, the Investigating Officer submitted DR recommending case for charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. On 22.9.2007, Special Public Prosecutor gave opinion for filing of charge-sheet. On 29.9.2007, order was received from the Directorate, Vigilance for returning the case as FRT and to move the authority for initiation of departmental action against the accused.

On 29.9.2007, FRT No. 37 dated 29.9.2007 under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act was filed. On 8.11.2007, the said FRT was received in the Court of CJM. Case record was sent to the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore for action. On 8.11.2007 itself, notice was issued to the complainant by the learned Special Judge for filing protest petition. On 19.1.2008, protest petition was filed by Rounak Bibi. The learned Special Judge held that sanction has not been obtained. So, he directed for investigation and to obtain sanction from the competent authority. On 26.2.2009, the learned Special Judge wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Balasore for submission of sanction order in the case.

3. For better appreciation of the case, the entire letter issued by the learned Special Judge is quoted hereunder.

"OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE) – BALASORE

No. 115

Date – 26.2.2009

From:

Sri B.S. Mohapatra,

Special Judge, (Vigilance) Balasore

To,

The Superintendent of Police,

(Vigilance), Balasore

Subject – Submission of sanction order in V.G.R. Case No. 13 of 2007

Sir,

I am to state that in the aforesaid case, final report has been submitted against which the informant has filed protest petition. On perusal of the case record, it reveals that there are materials against the accused person who is a government servant.

Therefore, I would like to request you to obtain sanction order from the competent authority and send the same to this Court by 19.3.2009 in absence of which progress in the case cannot be achieved.

Treat it as most urgent.

Yours faithfully

Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore"

4. On 13.11.2009, the DCP, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar sent a telegram to the SP, Vigilance for deputing I.O. to the office on 16.11.2009 for discussion of pre-sanction. On 16.11.2009, sanction was accorded for prosecuting the petitioner. On 17.11.2009 sanction order was sent to the Court. On 6.2.2010, sanction order was received in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance) and the case stood adjourned to 15.4.20





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top