The main legal point established in the judgment is that prior sanction of the competent authority is necessary to prosecute public servants for alleged offences committed in discharge of official duties, as per Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and established case laws.

JUDGMENT

Sashikanta Mishra, J. - All these cases have arisen out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 21 of 2002 and involve the same facts and questions of law. As such, all the three were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

FACTS

2. On 09.05.2002, the DSP, Vigilance, Balasore, lodged FIR before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Balasore alleging that during physical verification of stock in the godown of Nilgiri Block by a team of vigilance officers it was found that Sri P.K. Swain, the Marketing Inspector of Nilgiri Block (petitioner in CRLREV No. 1453 of 2010 and CRLMC No. 1606 of 2021) has misappropriated Q.441.89 Kg of levy sugar and about 70 quintals of PDS rice meant for distribution to the BPL beneficiaries of Nilgiri Block by black marketing the same in open market and by manipulating the books of accounts. The said FIR was registered as Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 21 of 2002 corresponding to VGR Case No. 21 of 2002 (T.R.No. 27 of 2010) of the Court of learned CJM, Balasore for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 409/468 of IPC. Upon detailed investigation, it was found that even though the quantity of sugar and PDS rice were stated in the books of accounts to have been lifted from the zonal godown (at Ganeswarpur) yet, because of lack of space in the godown at Nilgiri, the same had actually not been lifted and as such, were available as before in the zonal godown. Thus, the allegation of misappropriation of levy sugar could not be proved and it was held that the Marketing Officer had no intention of misappropriating the Government sugar so issued to him for the beneficiaries of Nilgiri Block. Further, the plea taken by the Marketing Inspector was verified during investigation and found to be partially true. Therefore, Final Report True under Section 468/409/511 of IPC was submitted for the irregularities committed by Marketing Inspector and ACSO, In-charge of the Zonal Godown. The Departmental Authorities were moved to take departmental action against them. Be it noted here that at the relevant time, the ACSO in-charge of the godown at Ganeswarpur was one Ramesh Chandra Satpathy, who is the petitioner in CRLMC No. 1111 of 2012. Even though final report was submitted as stated above, learned CJM held that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused persons and prima facie materials being available, cognizance of the offence was taken. Subsequently, on 07.06.2010, the petitioner, Pramod Kumar Swain filed an application with prayer to discharge him from the case. He also filed another petition on 28.06.2010 with the same prayer. Both the petitions were heard by learned court below on 15.11.2010 and were rejected on the same day. The said order of rejecting the petition for discharge is impugned in CRLREV No. 1453 of 2010. The grounds alleged by the petitioner in CRLREV No. 1453 of 2010 in the court below seeking discharge from the care are also more or less the grounds on which the petitioner in CRLMC No. 1111 of 2012 seeks dropping of the proceedings against him.

In CRLMC No. 1606 of 2021, the petitioner, Pramod Kumar Swain, seeks to challenge the decision of the learned trial court to proceed with the case after obtaining necessary information from this Court vide order dated 09.03.2021 and posting the case for hearing on the point of charge vide order dated 03.09.2021.

3. Heard Mr. Debasis Das, learned counsel for the petitioners in CRLREV No. 1453 of 2010 and CRLMC No. 1606 of 2021; Mr. T. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRLMC No. 1111 of 2012; Mr. Sangram Das, learned Addl. Standing for the Vigilance in CRLREV No. 1453 of 2010, Mr. P.K. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for Vigilance in CRLMC No. 1111 of 2012 and Mr. Niranjan Maharana, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for Vigilance in CRLMC No.1606 of 2021.

SUBMISIONS

4. Leading the arguments on behalf of both the petitioners, Mr. Debasis Das has basically raised the following points