Judgment

FAZAL ALI, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th August, 1976 of the High Court of Orissa by which the High Court has upheld the order of the Special Judge, Puri discharging respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and centre round an alleged conspiracy said to have been entered into between respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in order to commit offences under Sections 5 (2) and 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. The main charge against the respondents was that between 19-2-1972 to 30-3-1972 the respondents entered into an agreement for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary advantage for respondent No. 1 P. K. Samal and in pursuance of the said conspiracy the second respondent Debi Prasad Jena, who was the Land Acquisition Officer aided and abetted the first respondent in getting a huge sum of money for a land acquired by the Government which in fact belonged to the Government itself and respondent No. 1 was a lessee thereof. It is averred in the charge-sheet that respondent No. 1 by abusing his official position concealed the fact that the land which was the subject-matter of acquisition and was situated in Cuttack Cantonment was really Khasmahal land belonging to the Government and having made it appeared that he was the undisputed owner of the same, got a compensation of Rs. 4,18,642.55. The charge-sheet contains a number of circumstances from which the inference of the conspiracy is sought to be drawn by the police. After the charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Judge, the prosecution requested him to frame a charge against the respondents. The Special Judge, Puri after having gone through the charge-sheet and statements made by the witnesses before the police as also other documents came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground for framing a charge against the respondents and he accordingly discharged them under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the Code.) The Special Judge has given cogent reasons for passing the order of discharge. The appellant went up to the High Court in revision against the order of the Special Judge refusing to frame the charge, but the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant and maintained the order of discharge passed by the Special Judge. Thereafter the appellant moved this Court by an application for special leave which having been granted to the appellant, the appeal is now set for hearing before us.

3. The short point which arises for determination in this case is the scope and ambit of an order of discharge to be passed by a Special Judge under Section 227 of the Code. The appeal does not raise any new question of law and there have been several authorities of the High Courts as also of this Court on the various aspects and grounds on which an accused person can be discharged, but as Section 227 of the Code is a new section and at the time when the application for special leave was filed, there was no direct decision of this Court on the interpretation of Sec. 227 of the Code, the matter was thought fit to be given due consideration by this Court.

4. We might state, to begin with, that so far as the present case (offences committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act) is concerned it is regulated by the procedure laid down by the Criminal Law Amendment Act under which the police has to submit a charge-sheet directly to the Special Judge and the question of commitment to the Court of Session does not arise, but the Sessions Judge has nevertheless to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of sessions case and the consideration governing the interpretation of Section 227 of the Code apply mutatis mutandis to these proceedings after the charge-sheet is submitted before the Special Judge.

5. Before interpreting and analysing the provisions of Sec. 227 of the Code so far as pure