Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa Vigilance vs Govinda Chandra Das And Another on 27 June, 2017
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
CRLLP No. 146 of 2015
From the judgment and order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the
learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar in V.G.R. No.22 of
2006/T.R. No.16 of 2011.
-----------------------------
State of Orissa
(Vigilance) ......... Petitioner
-Versus-
Govinda Chandra Das
& another ......... Opposite Parties
For petitioner: - Mr. Sangram Das
(Standing Counsel)
Vigilance Department
For Opp. Parties: - Miss Deepali Mohapatra
Sandeep Parida
----------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Order: 27.06.2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. K. Sahoo, J.Heard Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department and Miss Deepali Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.
Perused the impugned judgment and order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), 2 Keonjhar in V.G.R. Case No.22 of 2006/T.R. No.16 of 2011.
It is the prosecution case that the petitioners executed substandard work over the project "Improvement of Sanmachakandana MIM (approach road), 2004-05" and had taken inflated measurement and check measurement over the work of the above project and thereby misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,95,442/- of the Government money.
The opposite party no.1 Govinda Chandra Das was the Assistant Engineer -cum- Executive Engineer in-charge of M.I. Division, Keonjhar and opposite party no.2 Lasa Murmu was the Junior Engineer, M.I. Division, Keonjhar and both of them faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar in V.G.R. No.22 of 2006/T.R. No.16 of 2011 for offences punishable under sections 409/420/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. They were acquitted of all the charges by the learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.06.2015.
The State of Orissa (Vigilance) has filed this application for grant of leave to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal.
Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department while challenging the impugned judgment submitted 3 that the learned Trial Court has come to an erroneous finding that there is no oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution that the opposite parties in furtherance of their common intention had cheated the Government to the tune of Rs.1,95,442/- or there was any conspiracy, pre-concert of minds of the opposite parties or any pre-arranged plan between them to commit the offence or offences complained of by the prosecution. In support of such contention, he placed the paragraph-9 of the impugned judgment.
On going through the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Trial Court has held that the entire prosecution case rests on the oral evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 as well as on the documents marked as Exts.4, 4/2, 4/3 and 5. Learned counsel also placed the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 as well as placed the relevant documents.
After considering the materials available on record, the learned Trial Court has come to a finding that no plausible explanation has been put forth from the side of the prosecution clarifying the discrepancies in the calculation sheet and the measurement sheet. It is further held that in view of the categorical admissions of the informant and the Investigating Officer of the case, it can very much be presumed without any hesitation that the technical inspection of the case project work 4 had been conducted after passage of more than one year of its completion. The learned Trial Court has considered the admission of P.W.7 that chances of destruction and deterioration after lapse of one year of construction of the road were there due to heavy rain, wind and passing of heavy vehicle. The learned Trial Court has also placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.11 who has stated that after passage of one year of completion of case work, Inspector D. Naik (P.W.8) conducted preliminary inquiry and thereafter submitted the F.I.R. before S.P., Vigilance, Balasore Division.
After discussing the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court came to hold that in paragraph-9 that the documents exhibited under Exts.4/2, 4/3 and 5 by the prosecution are not sufficient enough to hold the opposite parties guilty under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under section 13(2) read with section 13(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After analyzing the evidence, the learned Trial Court found the opposite parties not guilty of the said charges and acquitted them.
An order of acquittal should not be disturbed in appeal under section 378 of Cr.P.C. unless it is perverse or unreasonable. There must exist strong and compelling reasons in order to interfere with the same. On going the impugned 5 judgment as well as prosecution evidence and considering the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, I find no infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and considering the scope of interference in a case of appeal against the order of acquittal, I am not inclined to grant leave to the petitioner to prefer an appeal.
Accordingly, the CRLLP petition stands dismissed.
..............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 27th June, 2017/pravakar