Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SAVITRI RATHO
Subrat Kumar Behera – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of facts related to corruption allegations (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against fir and charges (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
SAVITRI RATHO, J.
1. This CRLMC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 53 of 2010, the chargesheet dated 25.07.2017 and the proceedings qua the petitioner pending before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance in T.R. Case No. 08 of 2018. Chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner and six others for commission of offences punishable under section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short “PC Act”) Sections 420 , 468, 471, 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short “the IPC”) and Section 3 -B of the Forest Conservation Act (in short “FC Act”). The application filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C on 24.08.2021 for discharging him has been rejected by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 01.03.2008, the Petitioner took charge as Tahasildar at Vyasanagar (Jajpur Road), Dis
The court reaffirmed that exoneration in disciplinary proceedings does not absolve criminal liability; sufficient prima facie evidence is essential for proceeding with corruption charges.
Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically lead to dismissal of criminal charges; higher standard of proof applies in criminal cases.
The court ruled that sufficient prima facie evidence can justify proceeding with charges of misappropriation, irrespective of past departmental findings of non-responsibility.
The principle of vicarious liability cannot be automatically imputed to directors or partners of a company without specific averments and proof of their involvement in the alleged offences.
Public servant needs protection from prosecution under IPC only if acts are connected to official duties; lack of nexus and undue delay infringes the right to a speedy trial.
Exoneration in departmental proceedings on merits precludes subsequent criminal prosecution on identical allegations due to differing standards of proof.
(1) Once a particular set of facts is examined by Central Vigilance Commission whereafter it reaches conclusion that on the basis of material put up before it, no criminal offence is made out against....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
