The court determined that a lack of evidence linking the petitioner to subsequent contracts or demonstrating substandard work precluded the continuation of the trial, establishing principles regarding the evaluation of prima facie cases under Section 227.

JUDGMENT :

CHITTARANJAN DASH, J.

1. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack in T.R. Case No.77 of 2009, wherein the learned court decline to allow the prayer of the Petitioner discharging him from the offences alleged.

2. The background facts of the case, in brief, are that on 07.12.2006, one M. Sethi, Inspector of Vigilance, C.D., Cuttack lodged a written report before the S.P., Vigilance, Cuttack Division alleging misappropriation of Government funds by officials of Aul Block in the execution of three road works, whereupon a vigilance enquiry was initiated. During enquiry, it was revealed that an estimate for improvement of Manapur–Nadikula village road was prepared by the Junior Engineer, Sri Pitabas Mishra of Aul Block for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was technically sanctioned by the Assistant Engineer, Aul Block, namely Sri Santosh Kumar Balabantaray on 14.09.2004 and administratively approved by the Collector, Kendrapara on 11.11.2004 from MPLAD funds. The work order for the said work was issued by the B.D.O. in favour of the present Petitioner on 14.11.2004, and the Petitioner executed the work between December 2004 and January 2005. It is further alleged that another estimate amounting to Rs.2.40 lakhs was prepared for the same road, though under a changed name, by the same Junior Engineer on 07.12.2005, and the work was executed by one Jayant Kumar Jena. Similarly, for construction of the C.C. road from the irrigation embankment to Aayatpur village, an estimate of Rs.2 lakhs was prepared by the same Junior Engineer, and the work order dated 22.09.2005 was issued in favour of one Biswanath Mallik. On the basis of the F.I.R., investigation was undertaken, and the technical wing of the Vigilance found that the Government had suffered a total loss of Rs.3,56,603/- due to inflated measurements recorded by the concerned Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer, who had allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with the contractors and thereby shown undue official favour. The learned trial court, upon receipt of the Charge-Sheet, took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the Petitioner. The Petitioner appeared pursuant thereto and moved an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the offences alleged, which was rejected, hence this revision.

3. Mr. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted during the course of hearing that the order of the learned court declining to discharge the Petitioner is illegal, erroneous, and unsustainable in law. According to him, the learned court failed to appreciate that the Petitioner had executed the work between December 2004 and January 2005, and that the bill in his favour was passed only after due check measurement. It is his submission that if, at the same location, a subsequent work order was issued in favour of another contractor under a changed description, the same cannot be attributed to the present Petitioner, nor can any criminal liability be fastened on him in connection with such subsequent work. In the absence of any clear report indicating that the work executed by the Petitioner was either beyond the approved scope or deficient in quality, no offence is made out against him. Learned counsel further contended that the trial court failed to take into account the technical inspection report dated 11.07.2006 submitted by one Mr. B.P. Das, J.E., Vigilance, wherein it was specifically observed, with regard to the subsequent work (Sl. No. II), that the pre-facing estimate had not been fu