The main legal point established in the judgment is that defects in the framing of charges can be considered as a mere irregularity and can be cured by the trial court, as long as no prejudice has been caused to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision has been filed by the Petitioners assailing the order dated 07.12.2017 passed in VGR Case No.11 of 2014 by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar thereby rejecting the Petitioners’ discharge petition and framing charge against the Petitioners for alleged commission of crime under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 409 of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution as called out from the Revision Petition in a nutshell is that on the allegation of huge misappropriate of BPL/AAY rice cost from the quota of Chamakpur Gram Panchayat under Joda Block of Keonjhar district by lifting the quota in the name of dead/migrant beneficiaries and showing the same to have distributed over the period from September-2008 to March-2014. On the aforesaid allegation, the Inspector of Vigilance Keonjhar Unit (Informant) conducted an enquiry and on verification, it was found that as many as 1081 cards under BPL category and 190 cards under AAY category were allotted to Chamakpur Gram Panchayat out of which 19 BPL/AAY beneficiaries died and 21 BPL beneficiaries migrated from Chamakpur G.P. leaving behind nobody from the family to receive the BPL/AAY rice though against their card numbers BPL/AAY rice is being lifted by the Gram Panchayat Secretary-cum-VLW-cum-PEO, Chamakpur G.P.

3. It is also alleged that the Petitioner No.1 during his incumbency as VLW-cum-PEO Chamakpur G.P. 14.12.1998 to 19.07.2012 had lifted total of 16,860.35 quintal of rice under the head of BPL/AAY beneficiaries. Out of the total rice lifted, a quantity of 212.95 quintal has been shown to be distributed amongst 21 dead/migrated BPL/AAY beneficiaries, which is false and fraudulent. As a result of which, it is alleged that there was a misappropriation of government money to the tune of Rs.3,73,566/-, i.e. the differential cost of purchase/economic cost and subsidized cost of the rice and it is further alleged that during incumbency of Petitioner No.2 as VLW-cum-PEO of the said G.P. for the period from 08/2012 to 03/2014, a total quantity of 6722.76 quintal of rice were lifted and distributed under the heading BPL/AAY beneficiaries. Out of the said quantity of rice, 106.50 quintal of rice was shown to be distributed in the name of aforesaid 21 dead/migrated beneficiaries and the differential cost of purchase /economic cost and subsidized cost comes to the tune of Rs.2,26,435/-. It has also been alleged that since no surviving legal heirs were found against the aforesaid 21 cards, their names have been deleted from the list of BPL/AAY beneficiaries from the month of April-2014 by the C.S.O., Keonjhar

4. Heard Mr.Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for Vigilance Department. Perused the case records.

5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are no way connected with the alleged crime and they have been falsely implicated by the Informant only to harass them.

6. Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department submits that after registration of F.I.R., the investigation of the case has been completed by the Investigating Agency and the charge-sheet has been submitted against the Petitioners under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 409 of I.P.C., as such, a prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners on the basis of materials available on record. He further submits that the Special Judge, Vigilance Department on being satisfied with the materials had taken cognizance of the alleged offences.

7. It is further apt to mention here that at the time of framing of charge, the present Petitioners filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 239 Cr.P.C. to discharge the Petitioners from the alleged criminal liability. However, learned trial court after hearing t