LAWS(ORI)-2010-1-8

SRI SAROJ KUMAR PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On January 11, 2010
SAROJ KUMAR PANDA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, who is the Proprietor of J.K. Printers, for quashing the order of cognizance dated 26.7.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 54 of 2002, against him.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the accused No. 1 - Hrusikesh Mallick is the Ex-Secretary of Children's Literature Committee, Bhubaneswar and is a public servant. He showed undue favour to the accused No. 2 (petitioner herein) by entrusting him to publish 24 Nos. of manuscripts of selected writings of eminent writers of the State to be supplied to 12760 numbers of primary schools of the State. The accused No. 1 entered into an agreement with the accused No. 2 (petitioner) on 28.11.1992 for printing the above books. The petitioner was supplied with papers worth Rs. 8,09,424/- and required amount towards printing charges and other expenses total in to Rs. 20,80,151/- (including cost of paper). The petitioner supplied 69,120 numbers of books worth Rs. 5,52,960/- and did not supply the remaining books worth Rs. 18,96.960/-. After completion of investigation, charge sheet No. 478 dated 27.12.2000 was submitted for alleged commission of offence under Section 120B I.P.C. read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) Mr. P.R. Dash, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material available on record to even prima facie show commission of the aforesaid offence by the petitioner, more specifically, offence under Section 120B IPC. None of the ingredients of Section 120B IPC are revealed from the materials collected during the investigation. Mr. Dash contended that offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be alleged against a private person. According to him, even accepting the entire materials produced by the prosecution, no case is made out against the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under the aforesaid sections.