Back
2019 Supreme(Ori) 144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, J.
Pratima Mohanty - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha (VIG) - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 3177 of 2017, 4804 of 2015
Decided On : 04-09-2019
Soura Ch. Mohapatra, Adv., Puspamitra Mohapatra, Adv., Biplab Kumar Dash, Adv., S.A. Hapiz, Adv., P.K. Swain, Adv., Sambit Biswal, Adv., Niranjan Moharana, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the authority to quash criminal proceedings against individuals if there is no prima facie case against them. The judgment also highlights the importance of active cooperation in furtherance of a joint evil intent in establishing criminal conspiracy.
Headnote:
Corruption - Criminal Procedure - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Indian Penal Code - 13(2), 13(1)(d), 420, 120-B - The judgment discusses the quashing of an impugned order dated 18.08.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.30 of 2014. The case arises out of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.31 of 2005. The court analyzed the prosecution case, the role of the petitioners, and the irregularities in the allotment of plots, ultimately quashing the proceedings against some petitioners while allowing it to continue against others.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the quashing of an impugned order dated 18.08.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.30 of 2014. The case arises out of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.31 of 2005. The prosecution case involves allegations of illegal allotment of plots by public servants in Bhubaneswar Development Authority and the Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Odisha. The petitioners sought to quash the order taking cognizance of offences under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 420 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners Pratima Mohanty, Rajendra Kumar Samal, and Prakash Chandra Patra had no role in the allotment of plots and did not influence the process. The court quashed the proceedings against them. However, the court allowed the proceedings to continue against the petitioners Parsuram Biswal and Bibhuti Bhusan Ray, who played a vital role in the institution of the allotment file for the vacant lands and placed favorable notes for allotment of the plots to applicants who had deposited initial money with their applications, including their family members.
Issues: The issues revolve around the alleged illegal allotment of plots by public servants in Bhubaneswar Development Authority and the Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Odisha. The court had to determine the roles of the petitioners in the allotment process and whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners Pratima Mohanty, Rajendra Kumar Samal, and Prakash Chandra Patra had no role in the allotment of plots and quashed the proceedings against them. However, the court allowed the proceedings to continue against the petitioners Parsuram Biswal and Bibhuti Bhusan Ray, who played a vital role in the institution of the allotment file for the vacant lands and placed favorable notes for allotment of the plots to applicants who had deposited initial money with their applications, including their family members.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners Pratima Mohanty, Rajendra Kumar Samal, and Prakash Chandra Patra. However, the court allowed the proceedings to continue against the petitioners Parsuram Biswal and Bibhuti Bhusan Ray in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Sahoo, J.
The petitioner Pratima Mohanty in CRLMC No.3177 of 2017 and the petitioners Bibhuti Bhusan Ray, Rajendra Kumar Samal, Parsuram Biswal and Prakash Chandra Patra in CRLMC No.4804 of 2015 have filed these criminal miscellaneous applications under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the impugned order dated 18.08.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.30 of 2014 in taking cognizance of offences under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter 1988 Act') and section 420 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against them. The said case arises out of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.31 of 2005.
Since both the CRLMC applications arise out of the same case, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the applications were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report dated 08.11.2005 lodged by K.S. Balabantray, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Vigilance Cell Unit Office, Bhubaneswar before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar Division, Bhubaneswar, in short, is that a preliminary enquiry was taken up basing on the credible source information that certain public servants occupying crucial position in Bhubaneswar Development Authority (hereafter 'B.D.A.') and in the Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Odisha (hereafter 'H. & U.D. Deptt.') surreptitiously distributed prime plots in Commercial Complex District Centre, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar,.
It is alleged in the F.I.R. that during the year 2000, the petitioners Parsuram Biswal and Rajendra Kumar Samal were functioning as Dealing Assistants in the Allotment Section in B.D.A. and Sri Bivas Kanungo, OAS(I) and Sri P.K. Patnaik, OAS(I) were the Officer on Special Duty (land) and Secretary, B.D.A. respectively. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy and by abusing their official positions, those officials of B.D.A. surreptitiously distributed prime plots in Commercial Complex District Centre, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar among Sri Sibananda Biswal, brother of the petitioner Sri Parsuram Biswal, in his own name Sri Bivas Kanungo, OAS(I), ODS(Land), B.D.A., Smt. Sanjukta Mohanty, wife of Sri Alekha Padhiary, OAS (I), Director, Housing Government of Orissa, Sri Pradyumna Kumar Mohanty, brother of the petitioner Pratima Mohanty, Steno to the then Vice Chairman, B.D.A., Smt. Amita Tarenia, wife of Sri Ashok Tarenia, OAS (I), H.U.D., Smt. Triptimayee Pradhan, Smt. Rajalaxmi Samal, Sri Anam Charan Pradhan, Sri Anirudha Patnaik and Smt. Kalpana Sarkar.
It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that there was no advertisement in providing opportunity to the general public regarding availability of B.D.A. plots for sale and their sale prices. Keeping the general public in darkness, the public servants in B.D.A. who had access to such information as insiders, distributed the prime plots among themselves or their relatives beyond the knowledge of general public and that to at minimal rates as compared to the prevalent rates in the area and thereby causing undue pecuniary advantage to the allottees and corresponding loss to the B.D.A. and public exchequer without any public interest.
It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the plots developed by B.D.A. in the same locality as District Centre, Chandrasekharpur were put to auction in the advertisement published in the Daily Newspaper "Indian Express" dated 13.10.2001, in which sealed tenders were invited from the intending purchases for allotment of commercial plots at District Centre, Chandrasekharpur at the minimum cost of Rs.120/- per sq. ft. but after opening of tender, the intending bidders were found to have quoted rates Rs.339/- (highest bidder) per sq. ft. and Rs.225/- (lowest bidder) per sq. ft whereas in the instant case, plots in the prime lo
