The second allegation against respondent No.
15,000 to her other son Tathagat Satpahty and managed to get invested a sum of Rs.33,000 in different names fictitiously in M s Rosambi Private Limited.
One of the allegations on the basis of which the charge sheet was filed was that on 15.7.74, respondent No.
The investment in the company struction of the house is said to be Rs.3,32,000 and odd whereas according to respondent No.
1 appear to be ground less and respondent No.
Subsequently she was re elected and became a Union Deputy Minister from January 1966 to June 1970 and a Union State Minister from June 1970 to June 1972.
This cash was discov ered after respondent No.
The companystruction of the house started in September 1974 and ended on 29th February, 1976.
1 paid Rs.
She became the Chief Minister of Orissa from 15.6.72 to 28.2.73 and again from 6.3.74 to 26.12.76.
It was alleged that during her incumbency as Chief Minister, the bank balance increased as well as her other assets swelled up and it was alleged that in 1977 her net assets were to the tune of Rs.7,54,735,85 p. which were disproportionate to her known sources of income.
1 ceased to be Chief Minister.
22 of 1981 arising out of an order dated 20th December, 1980 of the Additional Special Judge, Bhubaneswar allowing an applica tion filed by the Special Public Prosecutor praying for withdrawal from prosecution in Case No.
1 had joined, merged with the Janata Party, still many leaders of the Janata Party had a grudge against her as during her regime as Chief Minister when emergency was clamped, a number of leaders who were prominent in the Janata Party were put behind bars and ultimately for having assets disproportionate to her known sources of income, a prosecution was launched against her under Section 5 1 d read with Sec.
18,000.
1 herself and paid to Navjat Printers.
1, the Income Tax Department also issued numberice for re opening of her assessments and examined the whole matter afresh and during the period that this case has been pending here, final orders have been passed by the Income Tax Department which explain in detail all the items of assets which according to the prosecution were dispropor tionate to the legitimate means of respondent No.
It was alleged that Shri Natchiketa Satpathy, son of respondent No.
1 was that on 14.6.76 the Prime Minister requested respondent No.
1 left the Congress Party and joined the Congress for Democracy.
It was therefore alleged that respondent No.
It appears that when charge sheet was filed against respondent No.
One of the bags there had a visiting card of the First Secretary of the USSR Embassy.
1 by illegal and companyrupt means as Chief Minister.
1 paid Rs.50,000 to her son in three instalments.
It is also alleged that Navjat Printers which is owned by Samajba di Society received a sum of Rs.3,94,540 between 6.3.74 and 29.2.76 in respect of orders placed by U.P.C.C. The allega tion is that U.P.C.C. between 6.3.74 and 29.2.76, paid only Rs.60,964 and as regards the balance of Rs.3,33,576 it must have been acquired by respondent No.
Similarly it was alleged that on 15.3.75 respondent No.
1 obtained Rs.48,000 from M s Ferro Alloys Corporation.
1 to indicate the approximate value of her recently companypleted house at Bhubaneswar and numberreply to this query is found on the record of the Prime Minister.
It was alleged that in the house of her husband, cash was companytained in two bags which was to the tune of Rs.5 1,766.
In 1977 the respondent No.
13 of 1979 against respondent No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.1981 of the Orissa High Court in Crl.
1 and the charges against respondent No.
I adopt the reasons given by me in Criminal Appeal No.
The Vigilance Department of the State submitted a charge sheet against respondent No.
Even before becoming the Chief Minister of Orissa she had numberassets save and except a thatched roof house at Pithapur, Cuttack and a bank balance of Rs.
Since the case is listed for Judg ment on 20th December, 1986, I do number have time to write a detailed Judgment.
1 purchased a flat at Kailash Apartments, New Delhi and for this purpose respondent No.
In the parliamentary elections in 1977, the Congress was defeated and Janata Party came to power and also in the Assembly elections which followed, the Congress lost and the Janata Party came to power in the State.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
15,000 is said to have been a payment by cheque.
1 she had spent an amount of Rs.2,68,000 and the difference of Rs.64,000 ac companyding to the allegation of the prosecution was the amount acquired by respondent No.
OZA, J. The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa dated 14th May 1981 in Criminal Revision No.
The question to be decided in this appeal is the scope of Section 32 1 of Criminal Procedure Code, and I do number agree with the following observation of Oza, J. since there is numberquestion of setting aside of the order passed by the learned Additional Special Judge, Bhubaneswar But in the present case, there is numberpoint in setting aside the withdrawal and sending the case back to the learned Special Judge because after companysidering the entire material on record in detail we are of the view that there is numbermaterial at all on the basis of which it companyld be said that there is a prima facie case against respondent No.
241 of 1983, relying upon the decisions reported in 1957 SCR 279 State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey and in 1980 3 SCR 982 R.K. Jain v. State and uphold the order of withdrawal passed by the Additional Special Judge, Bhubanes war, and upheld by the High Court in revision, and dismiss the appeal.
It was alleged that the whole sum of Rs.3,27,614 is surreptitious and number disclosed in income tax return for the financial years 1974 75 and 1975 76.
The High Court too maintained the order of the learned Special Judge.
This order was, passed by her in her official capacity and it is alleged that because of this order M s Ferro Alloys made a huge profit of about Rs.4 crores and on 3.10.75 and 7.10.75 cheques in the aggregate sum of Rs.48,000 were given by M s Ferro Alloys Corporation to Dharitri a newspaper for an advertisement which was published in the newspaper.
The search was made on 8th July 1977 when respondent No.
48 of 1983.
22 of 1981.
5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
R. No.
The Income Tax Officer examined in detail each one of the items of assets said to have been unaccounted and sup pressed and the order passed by the Income Tax Officer which has been placed on record clearly explains all the items as also entries pertaining to the house companystruction and other assets and shows that there is numberhing to indicate the respondent No.
An amount of Rs.
By the impugned judgment the Honble High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant and companyfirmed the order passed by the learned Additional Special Judge permitting withdrawal of the case by the Special Public Prosecutor.
1 passed an order in favour of M s Ferro Alloys Corporation.
1 on the allegation that she had numberassets prior to her election as a member of the Rajya Sabha in the year 1962.
