S.K.SAHOO, J. - (1.)The petitioner Manoranjan Samal has filed this revision petition under section 401 read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to set aside the impugned order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore in T.R. Case No.47 of 2010 in rejecting his petition under section 239 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for discharge with a further prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 13.09.2016 in framing charges under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d)(ii) and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter for short '1988 Act'). The said case arises out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.17 of 2010.
(2.)The case was registered under section 7 of 1988 Act on 20.05.2010 on the first information report submitted by one Kali Charan Sahoo of village-Rajpur wherein he stated that he is a business man dealing with paddy and used to collect paddy from different cultivators of Balasore and Bhadrak districts and sell it at Medinipur of West Bengal. He further stated that he was making necessary tax payment at R.M.C. as per the rules of the Government at the rate of two per cent on the fixed rate of paddy and used to produce the tax payment receipts at Forest Gate, Jaleswar before the staff of R.M.C. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the employees of R.M.C. who were posted at the Forest Gate namely Srustidhar Behera, Market Sarkar and the petitioner who was the yardman were demanding Rs. 50/- to Rs. 300/- from each vehicle for passing through the gate. If the demand was not fulfilled, both the accused persons were not leaving the vehicles and not putting stamp on the receipts and even they used to take away the receipts of the R.M.C. If the vehicles carrying paddy were passing the gate without complying the demand of both the accused persons then they were to pay further tax in the border toll gate. The R.M.C. staff posted in the gate were collecting bribe forcibly from all the businessmen dealing with paddy and rice. It is further stated that on 21.05.2010 in the morning hours, he would carry trucks load of paddy purchasing it from Bhadrak to Medinipur and he has already made necessary tax payment at R.M.C., Bhadrak and obtained receipts and he was expecting that while passing through the R.M.C. gate at Rajghat, for the purpose of stamping the receipts, the two accused persons would demand Rs. 550/- otherwise they would not put any stamp. He further asserted that against his will, he was going to make payment of bribe money of Rs. 550/- to the two accused persons including the petitioner.
During course of investigation, the trap was laid after making preparation to lay a trap and the petitioner and the coaccused Srustidhar Behera were caught while demanding and accepting the bribe money from the informant. The informant and other witnesses gave their statements relating to demand and acceptance of bribe money. The fingertips washes of the accused persons were taken in sodium carbonate solution which proved positive. The chemical examiner found traces of phenolphthalein powder in the material exhibits. After obtaining sanction for prosecution from Sub-collector-cum-Chairman, R.M.C., Jaleswar, Balasore, charge sheet under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and section 7 of 1988 Act was submitted against the petitioner and co-accused Srustidhar Behera on 20.09.2010.

On submission of charge sheet, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore took cognizance of the offences which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 in CRLMC No.1479 of 2012 and the same was dismissed as pressed on 18.07.2012 with a liberty to file appropriate application at the stage of framing of charge.

At the stage of framing of charge, when the petitioner filed a petition for discharge, the learned trial Court has been pleased to hold that a strong prima facie case with regard to the demand of illegal gratification is available against both the accused persons. It was further held that meticulous examination of the materials at that stage is necessary and accordingly, the petition was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2016 and subsequently on 13.09.2016 the learned trial Court framed the charges.

(3.)Mr. Harmohan Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the impugned orders contended that there are discrepancies in the statement of the informant recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 vis-a-vis with that of the overhearing witness relating to the acceptance and recovery of bribe. He argued that both the informant and the overhearing witness in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 have implicated co-accused Srustidhar Behera to have made the demand and accepted the bribe money and in view of such statements, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. It is further contended that since the petitioner was working as Yardman of R.M.C., Jaleswar, the Sub-Collector, Balasore-cum-Chairman, R.M.C., Jaleswar was the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution against the petitioner as he was neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority and it is the Market Committee of the R.M.C. who is the appointing authority and disciplinary authority in respect of a Yardman and since the Market Committee has accorded any sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, the continuance of prosecution against the petitioner on the basis of sanction given by an incompetent authority is bad in law. Mr. Dhal, citing some of the provisions of the Odisha Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956 (hereafter '1956 Act') and the Odisha Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1958 (hereafter '1958 Rules') submitted that the provisions of the 1956 Act and 1958 Rules make it clear that it is the Market Committee who is the appointing authority as well as disciplinary authority of the petitioner and the Chairman of R.M.C. He asserted that since valid sanction is the pre-requisite for taking cognizance of any offence under the 1988 Act as stipulated under section 19 of the said Act, the learned trial Court was justified in dealing with the contentions raised relating to invalid sanction while considering the petition for discharge. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka reported in A.I.R. 2015 S.C. 3060 , State of Goa v. Babu Thomas reported in A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3606 and Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab reported in A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 1274.
Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department on the other hand while countering the invalidity of the sanction order contended that the plea of invalid sanction is different than absence of sanction and such a plea being essentially a question of fact is to be determined during course of trial and the petitioner is at liberty to raise such issue at the appropriate stage which is to be decided by the learned trial Court in accordance with law. Learned counsel emphatically contended that the learned trial Court has rightly dealt with the contentions raised relating to invalid sanction while considering the petition for discharge otherwise any finding thereon would have given scope to the petitioner to say that the Court has already pre-judged a vital issue. He argued that discrepancies if any, in the statements of the informant vis -vis the overhearing witness is to be appreciated by the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage and at this stage, it is expected of the Court to hold a mini trial. It is further contended that only there are prima facie materials on record against the petitioner for framing the charges but also there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court and therefore, the revision petition should be dismissed. Learned counsel apart from relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Parkash Singh Badal (supra) also placed reliance in the cases of Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 532 and Director, C.B.I. v. Ashok Kumar Aswal reported in (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases 163.