Asish Kumar Debta vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) & Another ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 8381 Ori

Orissa High Court

Asish Kumar Debta vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) & Another ... on 6 May, 2024

      THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               CRLMC No.3147 of 2022

      (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)
                                            -----------
Asish Kumar Debta                                      .......                    Petitioner


                                     -Versus-

State of Odisha (Vigilance) & another .......                                   Opp. Parties



      For the Petitioner             : Mr. Himansu Sekhar Mishra, Advocate

      For the Opp. Party             : Mr. Niranjan Maharana
      No.1                             Additional Standing Counsel (Vigilance)




CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

                        JUDGMENT

_________________________________________________________

Date of Hearing: 01.05.2024 : Date of Judgment : 06.05.2024 _________________________________________________________

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. In the present case, the petitioner is an accused in Sambalpur

Vigilance P.S. Case No.45 of 2021 corresponding to Vigilance G.R.

Case No.32 of 2021 for the offences under Sections-13(2) r/w

Section13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018

r/w Section-409 IPC.

2. Petitioner in the present petition seeks quashing of the entire

criminal prosecution initiated against him. The Vigilance case has been

registered on the basis of enquiry report of Lokayukta of Odisha. The

relevant part of the direction of the Lokayukta of Odisha reads as under:

"The investigating officer in his investigation report has recommended for filing of charge sheet under Section 13(2), read with Section 13 (1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, against Smt. Udian Luha, Ex- Sarpanch; Sri Bhaktaram Bariha, Ex-Panchayat Executive Officer and Sri Ashis Kumar Debata, Ex-Gram Rozgar Sevak of Guderpali Gram Panchayat for the misappropriation of government money amounting to Rs.4,74,761/- (Rupees four lakh seventy-four thousand seven hundred sixty one). On a careful examination of the entire material placed before us, we are of the considered view that there is sufficient evidence against Smt. Udian Luha, Sri Bhaktaram Bariha and Sri Ashi Kumar Debata regarding the misappropriation of government money, making them liable for prosecution for offences under Section 13 (2), read with Section 13 (1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, and Section 409 of Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly, we accord permission and direct the Director, Vigilance, Odisha to file the charge sheet through the investigating officer before the Special Court (Vigilance), Sambalpur under the supervision of the Director of Prosecution to Lokayukta, Odisha."

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was working as

GRS in Guderpali Gram Panchayat of Bargarh district. Two cheques, i.e.

one cheque of Rs.1,89,000/- dated 31.07.2019 and another cheque of

Rs.12,000/- dated 11.07.2019 were deposited in the account of the

petitioner. The said money was meant for making payment to the

beneficiaries of the MGNREGS workers.

4. It is alleged that the present petitioner, in connivance with the

Sarpanch and the Executive Officer of the Block and other officials

have misappropriated the funds meant for MGNREGS workers.

5. The Block Development Officer, Gaisilet, vide its letter dated

17.03.2021 sought explanation from the petitioner. In response to the

said, the petitioner vide its explanation dated 20.03.2021 submitted that

everything has been done at the instance of the PEO and the Sarpanch.

He offered the following explanation :

"In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that, I being a GRS, is duty bound to look after the MGNREGA works. Therefore, Check No.645925 Dt. 01.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- should not have been deposited in my account. However, I withdrew the said amount phasewise as per the directions of the PEO and Sarpanch because, they made me to understand that, as per my appointment letter, it has been stipulated that, my designation is 'Multi-Purpose Assistant (GRS)' and that, according to Point No.20 at Page-3 of the Job Chart for a GRS, it has been stipulated that, a GRS has to obey the directions of the BDO-cum-Program Officer, Sarpanch and Panchayat Executive Officer. Accordingly, I being a low paid employee and my service is placed under their disposal, I had no other option than to carry out their directions."

6. It appears that on the basis of the complaint dated 17.03.2021 filed

by the mother of the petitioner, a complaint case was registered before

the Lokayukt, Odisha and enquiry was conducted. The Lokayukta,

Odisha issued the notice to all the alleged accused persons under

Section-22 of the Odisha Lokayukta Act and sought for explanation from

all the accused persons including the petitioner. After evaluating the

explanation and material brought before the Lokayukta, while exercising

the power conferred under Section-20(1)(b) of the Odisha Lokayukta

Act, 2014, directed registration of a case and to investigate the same.

Pursuant thereto, the F.I.R. in subject has been registered against the

petitioner and others.

7. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the entire criminal

prosecution initiated against him primarily on the ground that he has no

role to play in the entire allegation of misappropriation except that he has

carried out the direction of his superiors. Apart from that, the petitioner

submits that at the instance of the complaint filed by his mother, the

Lokayukta, Odisha has initiated an inquiry and eventually the petitioner

was arrayed as an accused. If he had done anything wrong, his mother

would not have given the complaint to the Lokayukta.

8. Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

strongly relied upon the internal inquiry report conducted by the District

Panchayat Officer (DPO) and was submitted before the Collector,

Bargarh vide its letter dated 28.10.2020. In the said inquiry report, it has

been noted that the misappropriation of funds has been done by the Ex-

PEO-Bhaktaram Bariha and Sarpanch- Smt. Udian Luha. On the basis of

the said report, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel contends that registration of

the case against his client is not sustainable on facts as well as law.

Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court at this stage.

9. Mr. Niranjan Maharana, learned Addl. Standing Counsel

appearing for the opposite party-State Vigilance while controverting the

contentions made by Mr. Mishra has submitted that it has been admitted

that the money was deposited in the account of the petitioner and it has

also been admitted that he has withdrawn the money. The inquiry

conducted by the Lokayukta, Odisha indicates that the present petitioner

was actively involved with the principal accused for committing the

offences. In the proceeding dated 05.09.2022, the Lokayukta, Odisha,

inter alia, observed as follows:

"Having regard to the fact situation of the case, particularly with regard to the finding of misappropriation of funds against Sri Ashis Kumar Debata, we in exercise of powers conferred under Section 22 of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 called for information from him in the matter. This we did by our order dated 27.05.2022 and in compliance of the same, Sri Ashis Kumar Debata has submitted in writing that the allegation of misappropriation against him is not correct. According to Sri Ashis Kumar Debata, the amount of Rs.1,89,000/- deposited in his account was withdrawn by him and thereafter handed over to Smt. Udian Luha and Sri Bhaktaram Bariha who misappropriated Rs.89,682 from that amount and then by influencing the vigilance authorities have managed to implicate him. As regards the allegation of misappropriation of Rs.12,000/-, he has submitted that Smt. Udian Luha and Sri Bhaktaram Bariha had sanctioned and disbursed the said amount.

On perusal of the written response submitted by Sri Ashis Kumar Debata, we find that no material has been placed before us to show that he had handed over the entire amount of Rs.1,89,000 to Smt. Udian Luha and Sri

Bhaktaram Bariha after withdrawing the same from his account. His explanation is therefore not convincing to justify his stand of false implication. Further, in respect to Rs.12,000/- also, he could not produce vouchers, etc. before us to falsify the finding of misappropriation of that amount in the investigation report."

10. Taking into consideration the aforementioned submission and the

allegation made against the petitioner, I am of the considered view that at

this stage, no interference is called for in the present case.

11. Therefore, in the present petition seeking quashing of the entire

criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner deserves no merit.

Hence, the CRLMC is dismissed.

..................

S.S. Mishra (Judge)

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 6th May, 2024/Subhasis Mohanty, Personal Assistant