Orissa High Court
Ramnarayan Mohanty vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) .... ... on 22 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 35 of 2025
Ramnarayan Mohanty .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. H.M. Dhal, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. R.N. Parija, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vigilance) .... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. N. Moharana, ASC, Vigilance
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 22.01.2025
01. 1. Heard.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
04.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Vigilance, Sambalpur in SBP VGR Case No.25 of 2018,
whereby cognizance of offence punishable under
Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, 1988/120-B
IPC has taken against him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by taking me
to the observation made in the charge sheet submits
that no case is made out against the petitioner, but the
trial court has taken cognizance of offence against the
petitioner without any application of mind. He has
pointed out some relevant paragraphs of the charge
sheet which reads as under;-
"During the course of investigation verified the
procedure for splitting up of the work and found that
accused Sri Ram Narayan Mohanty, Ex-Executive
Engineer, Stores & Mechanical Division, Hirakud has
violated para 3.5.24 of O.P.W.D. Code Vol.-l
(amendment-2007) regarding Ban on Splitting up of
Work in this case.
During investigation Sri Anil Ku. Badpanda, Tracer in
the O/o Executive Engineer, Stores & Mechanical
Division, Hirakud, Dist.Sambalpur and Md. Sekh
Hiralal, Drafts Man (Estimating Section) (Retd.) in the
O/o Executive Engineer, Stores & Mechanical Division,
Hirakud, Dist.Sambalpur who are well acquainted with
the handwriting and signatures of the executants and
proved the same.
From the documents and the statements of the officials,
it is proved that although Sri Mohanty has split up the
work in a piece meal manner illegally but there has
been no complain about the standard of execution of
the work. The civil departments who have taken charge
of the gates have also not yet lodged any complain
against the quality of the work executed. During the
course of investigation, T.I. was conducted by the
Technical Team and it was found that, the portion of
works against which T.l. could be conducted, it was not
found sub-standard. However, T.I. could not be
conducted in respect of some invisible/unapproachable
works. Hence, it is proved that no loss has been
caused to the Government exchequer."
4. Relying upon the aforementioned paragraphs,
he submits that the allegations are two folds, first of all
the petitioner alleged to have awarded the work to the
proprietorship firm of M/s B.B. and M/s S.S. Industries
Ltd. without calling for open tender and secondly
without there being any prior permission the work has
been splited. Learned counsel for the petitioner by
pointing out the findings on enquiry of the IO as
mentioned above has submitted that the there is no loss
caused to the Government exchequer. Therefore, no
criminal liability could have been fasten upon the
petitioner.
5. Mr. Moharana, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the Vigilance on the contrary submits that
the two work orders issued by the petitioner to both the
contractors are husband and wife and while splitting the
work the petitioner has not even taken prior permission
and not even given reasoning for the same, which is
required under clause-3.5.24 of the OPWD Code, Vol.I.
He further submits that at the stage of cognizance the
trial court need not appreciate the evidence and, as
such, the trial court is required to satisfy regarding
prima facie case against the petitioner. Hence no fault
could be found from the impugned order.
6. I am in agreement with the submission made by
Mr. Moharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for
the Vigilance. It is apt to rely on the judgment of the Apex Court
in the context of ambit and power of the trial court to take cognizance
of offences. In Rashmji Kumar (smt) Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada,
AIRONLINE 1996 SC 699, the court held that-
"It is fairly settled legal position that at the time of taking
cognisance of the offence, the Court has to consider only the averments
made in the complaint or in the charge-sheet filed under Section 173,
as the case may be. It was held in State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla
[(1996) 8 SCC 164] that it is not open for the Court to sift or
appreciate the evidence at that stage with reference to the material and
come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out for
proceeding further in the matter. It is equally settled law that it is open
to the Court, before issuing the process, to record the evidence and on
consideration of the averments made in the complaint and the evidence
thus adduced, it is required to find out whether an offence has been
made out. On finding that such an offence has been made out and after
taking cognizance thereof, process would be issued to the respondent to
take further steps in the matters."
7. I have given a careful consideration to the facts
of the case and the contention raised by both the parties
at the Bar and arrive at a conclusion that the impugned
order requires no indulgence at this stage. Therefore, the
petition is dismissed.
8. The CRLMC is accordingly dismissed. However,
dismissal of the petition shall not preclude the petitioner
raise all the points before the court below at the stage of
framing of charge or at a later stage.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Ashok
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB
Location: High Court of Orssa, Cuttack
