Nandakishore Pal vs State of Orissa (Vigilance)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Ori) 398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G.SATAPATHY
Nandakishore Pal – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa (Vigilance) – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : R. Roy
For the Respondent: S. Das

Table of Content
1. background of the case and allegations (Para 1 , 2)
2. contentions of the parties regarding sanction and delay (Para 3 , 4)
3. importance of sanction under the law (Para 5 , 14)
4. distinction between pc act and crpc (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
5. criteria for protection under section 197 crpc (Para 10 , 11)
6. delay affecting the right to speedy trial (Para 12 , 13 , 15)
7. court's decision to discharge the petitioner (Para 16)

JUDGMENT :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. This criminal revision U/S. 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short the ‘Cr.P.C.’) assails the order passed on 18.08.2014 by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack in TR Case No. 213 of 2007 refusing to discharge the Petitioner for commission of the offences under IPC while discharging him for commission of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, “PC Act”) in an application U/S. 239 of Cr.P.C.

2. Facts in nutshell are, on receipt of reliable information of misappropriation of Government subsidy money of Rs. 1,50,000/-, an enquiry was taken up by the Vigilance Unit of Cuttack and accordingly, it was found that during 1990-91, 150 shallow point tube- wells(SPTW) were