Orissa High Court
Mrs. Purnima Pattnaik, J.T.O. vs Republic Of India on 21 April, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(II)OLR186
Author: L. Mohapatra
Bench: L. Mohapatra
JUDGMENT L. Mohapatra, J.
1. The petitioner in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has questioned the legality of the order dated 14.12.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar rejecting the application filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. to discharge her of the offences alleged against her and three other accused persons.
2. One Subash Samantray who is also an accused in the said case took up work of laying underground cables from Barbil Exchange to Balani Mines and other ancillary works which is required for the purpose of laying underground cables. On three occasions, 5798 meters of 20 pairs cables were supplied to said Subash Samantray through accused Suresh Chandra Nayak and the present petitioner, who were working as S.D.O. (Telephones) and J.T.O. (Telephones) respectively. The stock register however shows that the two consignment of cables received by the J.T.O. were not handed over to the contractor, namely, accused Subash who only received one consignment measuring 2096 metres directly from the S.D.O. The work commenced on 10.7.1991 and the two bills raised by the accused Subash after completion of the work were passed for payment after the measurement of the work was taken on 14.8.1991. It is found from the materials on record that through 5798 meters of cables were supplied to the contractor Subash Samantray, the bill was passed for 6496 metres of cables and thereby the Telephone Department was put to loss of Rs. 19 lakhs and odd. Having received the information about such misappropriation, the Inspector of C.B.I, himself lodged FIR, investigated the case and after that, submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and other three accused persons for the offence committed under Sees. 120-B, 420, 409 of the IPC and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act.
3. At the time of framing of charge, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 239, Cr.P.C. to discharge her on the ground that on the existing materials none of the offences as alleged has been made out against her. Learned Special Judge, as it appears from the impugned order, has discussed all the points advanced and rejected the application.
4. Shri Ganeswar Rath, learned, counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no misappropriation as alleged and had the learned Special Judge looked into the measurement book, he would have been satisfied that all the allegations are false. He contends that measurement book was not verified by the I.O., as a result of which he came to such wrong conclusion. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to certain documents filed along with the petition and submits that these documents clearly indicate that 6496 metres of cables were utilised and accordingly bills were raised and therefore question of misappropriation does not arise.
On the other hand, counsel appearing for the C.B.I, submits that at the stage of framing charge the Court has to only see as to whether a prima facie case exists against the accused or not. Court is also not required to give any reason while framing charge. However, only when the Court decides to discharge the accused he has to give reason. In the present case, even though Court refused to discharge the petitioner he has given reasons for doing so and therefore this Court may not interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has relied upon a decision reported in (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 477 (Kanti Bhadra Shah and another v. The State of West Bengal) in support of such contention.
5. In have perused the impugned order as well as the documents filed on behalf of the petitioner before this Court. It appears from the impugned order that learned counsel for the petitioner had argued before the trial Court that measurement book for the aforesaid work was not seized by the I.O. and had not been verified. Had it been seized and verified, there would not have been an occasion to submit a charge-sheet. It was also contended before the trial Court that even though any discrepancy in the bill and the amount of cables supplied is found, same can be reconciled by assuming that excess cables were supplied to the contractor from the local store and the work has been completed by using the same. Learned Special Judge has dealt such contention in para 5 of the impugned order. The learned Special Judge has looked into the measurement book even though the same was not seized during investigation. On the basis of a petition filed on behalf of the accused persons, measurement book was called for. After looking into the measurement book and the running bills, the learned Special Judge was satisfied that possibility of procuring excess cables from the local store cannot be believed at this stage and the petitioner being the J.T.O. was nominated for the supervision and inspection of the work entrusted to the contractor and in that capacity she as well as the S.D.O. have signed the measurement book after which the bill was passed. Learned Special Judge has further found that the petitioner and the S.D.O. being aware of the short supply of cables to the contractor have closed their eyes and signed the measurement book, even if use of excess cables to the extent of 698 metres was shown in the measurement book.
6. In view of the reasons given by the Special Judge, I do not find any justification to interfere with the said order. Apex Court in the decision cited on behalf of the opposite party has held that if the trial Court decides to frame charge there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying reasons as to why he opted to do so. Framing of charge itself is prima facie case that the trial Judge has formed the opinion. Considering the police reports and other documents and after hearing both sides, the Court forms an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. Apex Court has further observed that if a Magistrate after taking all the evidence considers that no case against the accused has been made out, he shall discharge the accused and record the reasons for doing so. In the present case, the Special Judge has declined to discharge the petitioner and has also recorded the reasons for doing so.
I do not find any infirmity in the reasons given by the Special Judge. Therefore, I do not find merit in the case and the same is accordingly dismissed.