Orissa High Court
K. Rabindra Kumar Patra vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) ....... Opp. ... on 1 December, 2023
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
CRLREV No.625 of 2022
From the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by Special Judge
(Vigilance), Berhampur in G.R. Case No.06 of 2016(V).
------------------------
K. Rabindra Kumar Patra ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha (Vig.) ....... Opp. Party
For Petitioner: - Mr. S.S. Rao
Senior Advocate
For Opp. Party: - Mr. Sangram Das
Standing Counsel (Vig.)
------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Order: 01.12.2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. SAHOO, J. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
K. Rabindra Kumar Patra challenging the order dated 30.11.2022
passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur in
G.R. Case No.06 of 2016(V) in rejecting the petition under
section 239 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for his discharge.
// 2 //
2. The prosecution case, as per the first information
report lodged by Suresh Kumar Tripathy, the Inspector in-charge
of Badabazar police station on 16.02.2016 before the
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Berhampur, is that he
received information regarding illegal manufacturing and
hoarding of Gutkha at Phulasundari Sahi under Badabazar police
station and Haladiapadar under Gosani Nuagaon police station by
the petitioner, the proprietor of Maa Biraja Products and
accordingly, he along with the police staff conducted raids in the
godowns on 16.02.2016 and during raid, the police team
detected huge quantities of Gutkha and Zarda Gutkha along with
manufacturing machines in both the places. Some documents
were produced by the petitioner relating to the storage and
production of such materials. However, in order to ascertain the
genuineness of the documents and available materials, the
informant made arrangement for guarding both the godowns by
deploying P.S. staff and directed the petitioner to produce the
original documents in support of his business. It is the further
prosecution case that at 2.00 p.m., while the informant was
present in his office chamber situated at Badabazar police station
premises, the petitioner came to his room and offered him bribe
of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) with a request to release the
Page 2 of 8
// 3 //
Gutkha and not to take any legal action either against him or his
staff. The informant vehemently opposed to the same and
warned the petitioner not to offer any bribe to him otherwise he
would be constrained to take legal action against him
(petitioner). In spite of repeated warning, the petitioner insisted
the informant to receive the bribe money and thereafter, the
petitioner left the place telling that he would come to the
Badabazar police station at 10.00 p.m. to give bribe money.
Apprehending that the petitioner would come again to the police
station to offer bribe to him, the written report was presented
before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Berhampur by the
informant and accordingly, the Superintendent of Police treated
it as an F.I.R. and directed the O.I.C., Vigilance police station to
register a case under section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (hereafter 8P.C. Act9) and accordingly, the
investigation of the case was handed over to one D.N. Das,
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Berhampur.
During course of investigation, a trap team was
formed and it is the prosecution case that the petitioner came to
the Badabazar police station carrying a cotton bag in his hand
and came to the chamber of the informant and requested the
informant not to take any legal action either against him or his
Page 3 of 8
// 4 //
staff and offered Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) to the
informant. The informant denied receiving the same for which
the petitioner brought out four bundles of G.C. notes, having five
hundred rupees denominations and kept the same on the office
table of the informant and again requested the informant to help
him. One Dayasagar Sahu, who was the overhearing witness,
after hearing the conversation between the petitioner and the
informant passed the prearranged signal to the trap party
members and accordingly, the trap party members rushed to the
chamber of the informant and they found four bundles of G.C.
notes on the office table of the informant. After the trap was
made successful, the investigation carried out and ultimately
finding prima facie case against the petitioner that he was
offering forcibly bribe amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two
lakhs) to the Inspector in-charge of Badabazar police station,
Berhampur, who is the informant in the case in order to release
the Gutkha and not to take any legal action either against him or
his staff, charge sheet was placed against him under section 12
of the P.C. Act.
3. The petitioner filed a petition under section 239
Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court for discharge and it is
stated in the discharge petition that the petitioner is a licensed
Page 4 of 8
// 5 //
dealer and holder of registration for dealers under the Value
Added Tax under the name and style of M/s. Maa Biraja Products
and he was dealing in manufacturing chewing tobacco, pan
masala, mouth freshener and using the products such as betel
nuts, lime, menthol, cardamom etc. and it is further stated that
for the purpose of manufacturing and taking the products such
as packing of pan masala, he was paying the excise duty. It is
further stated that there was absolutely no reason as to why the
petitioner would offer bribe to the informant a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) and there was no occasion for
the petitioner to offer and pay the bribe as he needed no benefit
from the I.I.C. and the story was created and concocted and the
same is not to be accepted.
4. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated
30.11.2022 has been pleased to hold that from the allegation
levelled against the petitioner, there is strong suspicion of his
involvement in the alleged crime and therefore, the Court
rejected the petition being devoid of merit.
5. Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the petitioner reiterated the averments taken in the 239 Cr.P.C.
petition and submitted that there is absolutely no clinching
evidence on record to substantiate the accusation levelled
Page 5 of 8
// 6 //
against the petitioner and to file charge sheet against him under
section 12 of the P.C. Act and therefore, the learned trial Court
has committed illegality in rejecting the petition filed under
section 239 Cr.P.C.
6. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for the
Vigilance Department, on the other hand, submitted that the
learned trial Court has rightly held that even on the basis of
strong suspicion, the charge can be framed and when the
materials are available on record, particularly, the statement of
Dayasagar Sahu, the overhearing witness and the seizure of
cash of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) from the office table of
the informant, it is apparent that the petitioner had tried to offer
bribe to the informant and therefore, prima facie the ingredients
of the offences are made out and there is no illegality or
impropriety of the impugned order and therefore, the revision
petition is dismissed.
7. Section 239 Cr.P.C. deals with the discharge of an
accused. It is stated that if, upon considering the police report
and the documents sent with it under section 173 Cr.P.C. and
making such examination, if any, of the accused as the
Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and
the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate
Page 6 of 8
// 7 //
considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he
shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.
Law is well settled that no detailed evaluation of the
materials or meticulous consideration of possible defence need
be undertaken at the stage of consideration of the discharge
petition. The exercise of weighing the materials in golden scales
is certainly to be avoided at the stage and it is to be postponed
to a later date. 8Groundless9 the word which is appearing under
section 239 Cr.P.C. means without basis or foundation. Even
very strong suspicion founded on materials before Magistrate is
sufficient for framing of charge. Where there is a prima facie
material to frame charge against the accused, charge cannot be
said to be groundless and the accused cannot be discharged
under section 239 Cr.P.C. This is not the stage for weighing the
pros and cons of all the implications of the materials, not for
sifting the materials presented by the prosecution. The exercise
at the stage should be confined to considering the police report
and the documents to decide whether the allegations against the
accused are 8groundless9 or whether there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed the offence.
After going through the materials available on record,
particularly, the statement of the overhearing witness Dayasagar
Page 7 of 8
// 8 //
Sahu and the seizure of cash of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two
lakhs), which is stated to have been produced by the petitioner
before the informant, I am of the view that there is prima facie
material on record against the petitioner for the commission of
offence under section 12 of the P.C. Act. Therefore, the learned
trial Court is quite justified in rejecting the petition under section
239 Cr.P.C.
In view of the foregoing discussions, the CRLREV
being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
Before parting, I would like to place it on record by
way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated
hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose
of disposing of the prayer for discharge made by the petitioner.
Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression
of a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for
decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the
trial Court at the appropriate stage of the trial.
A copy of the order be communicated to the learned
trial Court.
................................
Signature Not Verified S.K. Sahoo, J.
Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Reason: AuthenticationOrissa High Court, Cuttack Location: HIGH COURT OF1st The ORISSA, CUTTACK December 2023/RKMishra Date: 04-Dec-2023 18:20:02 Page 8 of 8