In discharge petitions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, prima facie evidence must show the accused's complicity; self-restraint by higher courts is crucial during charge framing to uphold the trial process.

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

By way of this petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.09.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Dhenkanal in T.R. Case No. 26/2017, refusing the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him from the alleged commission of offences under Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and Sections 468/471/420/120B of the IPC .

2. Heard Mr. H.K. Mund, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite party-Vigilance Department.

3. The facts in nutshell is that, the present petitioner is one of the accused in the aforesaid Vigilance case. It has been alleged that, when the petitioner was the Project Director, DRDA, Dhenkanal during the period 2001-2002, he along with other two co-accused persons, namely, one Nityananda Mohanty, who was the Collector, Dhenkanal and one Satyananda Balasamanta, the Transport Contractor, at that relevant point of time, have caused pecuniary loss to the State Exchequer. It is alleged that the petitioner and said Collector have made excess payment of Rs.9,47,119/-(rupees nine lakhs forty seven thousand one hundred nineteen) to the said Transport Contractor and thereby illegally gained the contractor causing heavy pecuniary loss to the Exchequer of the State. The specific allegations against the petitioner are that he accepted the quotations from the alleged Contractor without adopting any procedure of bidding, agreed to the rate quoted by the Contractor and gave his proposal to the Collector for approval and issuance of work order in favour of the Contractor and issued the work order in favour of the co-accused Contractor for transportation of rice and wheat from the FCI Go-down, Dhenkanal to different Block Headquarters and Gram Panchayat (GP) Headquarters under the Food for Work Programme. As per charge sheet, the approved rate for transportation prescribed by the Odisha Civil Supply Corporation, Dhenkanal (hereinafter referred to as ‘OCSC, Dhenkanal) was not adhered to by the petitioner for transportation of the said food grains and higher rate was paid to the said Contractor only by accepting the hand quotations given by the Contractor, without any bid having certain oblique motive.

4. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Government of Odisha in Panchayat Raj Department had allotted 1500 MT of rice and 3000 MT of wheat to Dhenkanal district vide letters dated 14.03.2001 and 17.03.2001 respectively, with instructions to lift the food grains by 31.03.2001 without any lapse, which was received by the petitioner on 19.03.2001. It is stated that on basis of that, the District Manager, OCSC, Dhenkanal was requested by the petitioner on 20.03.2001 along with a Cheque of Rs.10.00 lakhs to lift the stock from the FCI godown. However, the DM, OCSC, Dhenkanal expressed its inability and returned the said cheque of Rs. 10.00 lakhs on 26.03.2001. Therefore, taking into consideration the urgency and instructions of the Government, it was not possible to call for the tender and finalise the rate for transportation charges within a short span of time, as the stock was directed to be lifted on or before 31.03.2001 and accordingly with the approval of Collector, Dhenkanal the contract was awarded on the basis of quotations received, which comes within the rate prescribed by the PR Department. Similarly, on 4.5.2001 the PR Department allotted 1440 MT of food grains, which was to be lifted by 30.05.2001 and further 2900 MT of food grains on 13.09.2001 which were to be lifted by the end of September, 2001. Therefore, after due approval of the Collector, Dhenkanal the petitioner allowed the co-accused contractor to lift the stock as per the old rate as was fixed in the month of March, 2001. It is thus submitted that, it cannot b