Though several government officials were charged for companymission of offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in short the PC Act , according to the accused the investigating officer did number find sufficient evidence to bring home charge of companyplicity of the government officials and charge sheet was filed only so far as the present accused respondent is companycerned.
As companynizance was taken and the prayer to dispense with personal appearance and recall of the number bailable warrant of arrest issued were rejected petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court.
The High Court companysidered the last described petition as the pivotal one and took others to be companysequential.
1979 ILR Patna 459 .
The petitions were filed, inter alia, 1 to quash the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer Vigilance Cell Bhubaneshwar, 2 to quash the order dated 9.12.2002 taking companynizance of offences punishable under Section 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and 3 to quash the order passed rejecting the prayer in terms of Section 205 of the Code and rejecting the prayer to recall the order directing issuance of number bailable warrant of arrest.
Reliance was placed on a decision of the Patna High Court in JA.C. Saladanha v. Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna and Ors.
Arising out of SLP CRL No.3708 3710/2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
By the impugned judgment the High Court held that investigation was unauthorized and, therefore, the proceedings were vitiated.
Accordingly, proceedings were quashed.
The State of Orissa questions legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court disposing of three petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
