1 on the basis that in the opinion of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who framed the charge there was ground for presuming that re spondent No.
Nandini Satpathy, Ex Chief Minister of Orissa.
Nandini Satpathy respondent No.
1980 the Special Public Prosecutor made an application for additional ground to be added in the application for withdrawal and the additional ground alleged was that in public interest and in the changed circumstances, the State Government desired to withdraw from the prosecution.
Shri B.M. Patnaik the then Advocate General of Orissa was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor to companyduct the case.
On the information of Shri Shyamsunder Mohapatra, Ex Member of Parliament, a case was registered by the Vigi lance Department and ultimately a charge sheet was submitted against respondent Nos.
1980 the learned Advo cate General Shri Gobind Das forwarded this letter of Shri K. Mohanty, Advocate to the Chief Secretary who endorsed the letter to Inspector General Vigilance asking him for his companyments.
Thereafter one Mohd.
By order dated 27.9.
1979, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges under Sections 406, 467, 471 and 120 of the I.P.C. against respondent No.
1 in misappropriation of the aforesaid amount.
By letter dated 15.11.1980, the I.G. Vigilance companymunicated the decision of the Government to withdraw the prosecution to the Special Public Prosecutor Shri Dibakar Bhuyan and requested him to take necessary action in the matter.
It is alleged that forgery was companymitted and Shri Ramanath Panda, respondent No.
1 misappropriated a sum of Rs.
1 and 2 alleging that in January and February 1971 certain companypanies had issued 49 cheques in the names of Presidents of the District Congress Committees of Orissa totalling Rs.1,08,200 for advertise ments to be published in Souvenirs to be brought out in each district by the respective District Congress Committee.
He had been suspended from the Congress Party for his anti party activities when respondent No.
It is significant that these monies were paid by various companypanies in the name of All India Souvenir Committee and there is numbermaterial to indicate how the All India Souvenir Committee transferred these cheques to the respective State Congress Committees or the District Congress Committees.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court Government may take a policy decision to curb such political victimisation through law Courts and direct with drawal irrespective of the question whether or number there is sufficient evidence in support of the prosecution.
On the receipt of this opinion from the law Department, the file was endorsed by the Chief Secretary to the Law Minister and the Law Minister endorsed the file to the Chief Minister.
Shri Shyamsunder Mohapatra lodged the company plaint when respondent No.
33 of 1977 against Respondent No.
1 and 2.
From the Judgment and Order dated May 14, 1981 of the Orissa High Court in Crl.
It is al leged that respondent No.
v. State through Special Police Establishment and Others, 1980 3.
The instant case is one instituted against Smt.
Nandini Satpathy, he filed an application under Section 32 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal from the prosecu tion on, having found that the charged amounts in this case are companytributions to Souvenir Committee of the All India Congress Committee and that numbere of the members of the Central Souvenir Committee has companyplained of any dishonest use or fraud or injury or wrongful loss to the Committee or AICC for such number utilisation of the funds and that the offences charged would ultimately depend upon the proof of dishonest intention or fraud or wrongfUl loss to the Cen tral Souvenir Committee or to the AICC.
Thereafter respondent No.
I adopt the reasons given by me in Criminal Appeal No.
But by an order dated 14.5.81 the High Court dismissed the revision petition.
It is significant to numbere that Shri Shyamsun der Mohapatra was neither an office bearer of the U.P.C.C. number of the A.I.C.C. Admittedly he was neither a member of the Central Souvenir Committee to which the money was en trusted for transmission to the State or the District Con gress Committee number was he in any manner companynected with any of the companypanies which paid the money for publication of the advertisements.
On 5.11.80, Shri K. Mohanty, Advocate sent a letter to the then Advocate General Shri Gobind Das requesting him for withdrawal of this .case and by letter dated 6.11.
I.G. of Police Vigilance suggested that it would be proper to obtain the views of the Law Department, and after receipt of the companyments of I.G. of Police Vigi lance the Chief Secretary referred the matter to the Law Department for advice and the Legal Remembrancer after companysidering the legal position regarding the withdrawal of the prosecution observed as under As it sometimes happens, Political leaders are subjected to victimisation.
It was alleged that the Souvenir Committee was formed and huge amount was companylected from different companypanies at Delhi and Bombay for publication of advertisements in the Souvenirs.
Mumtaz, the present appellant who was number a party to these proceedings filed a revision petition in the High Court of Orissa challenging the order of the Additional Chief Judi cial Magistrate permitting withdrawal of the case.
1 By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed Criminal Revision filed by the appellant petitioner and companyfirmed the order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
After respondent No.
Nandini Satpathy.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.49 of 1983.
1 misappropriated the amount by drawing.
1 and under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against respondent No.
in favour of self bearer 9 cheques aggregating to Rs.95,000 and two bearer cheques aggregating to Rs.32,854 in the name of respondent No.
The F.I.R. in this case was lodged by one Shyamsunder Mohapatra against respondents Nos.
1 was number the Chief Minister of the State.
It is further alleged that Smt.
It was alleged that neither advertisements were published number the amounts returned to the companypanies.
J. Francis for the Appellant.
4 was put in charge of the case, he examined the case diary and the companynected papers and on being satisfied that the charge of criminal breach of trust would fail against Smt.
1 had companymitted the offences charged against her.
21 of 1981 arising out of an order dated 20th September, 1980 passed by Additional Chief Judi cial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar allowing an application filed by the Special Public Prosecutor wherein he prayed for withdrawal from the prosecution of the Vigilance Case No.
2 was also alleged to have participated with respondent No.
Of Advocate General and also informed the State Government that he was number inclined to companytinue as Special Public Prosecutor in the case against Smt.
21 of 1981.
241 of 1983, relying upon the decision 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 Chief Judicial Magis trate, Bhubaneswar, and upheld by the High Court in revi sion, and dismiss the appeal.
OZA, J For himself and on behalf of Bhagwati CJ.
I am of the view that the decision in The State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, 1957 SCR 279 interpreting section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the decision in R.K. Jain etc.
The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa dated 14th May 1981 in Criminal Revision No.
On 16.12.
1 was the President of the U.P.C.C. and the Chief Minister of Orissa.
After the General Elections of May June, 1980, Shri Patnaik resigned from the office.
4 who had been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor to companyduct the cases of the Vigi lance Department under Section 24 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was instructed by the Government in the Vigilance Department to take charge of this case.
R. No.
1 on the allegation that All India Congress Party some time before the General Election of the Parliament in the year 1971 set out a programme to raise funds for publication of Souvenir on behalf of the said party by each of the District Congress Committees under different provincial Congress Committees to educate people about the policy and programme of the Congress Party and the achievements in the companytext of 1971 Elections.
1,02,200 out of this amount companylected from the companypanies and did number take steps for asking the Companies advertisements for publication in the Souvenirs.
These cheques were deposited in the account of Chairman, Souvenir Committee in Canara Bank, Bhubaneswar.
Anil B. Divan, D.P. Singh, G.S. Chatterjee, R.K. Mehta, Salaman Khurshid, L.R. Singh and Vinoo Bhagat for the Re spondents.
In fact, though the case had been fixed on a number of dates between July and November, 1980 Shri Patnaik did number appear in the case on any one of these dates.
After companysideration of the case, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 20th December, 1980 recorded his companysent and permitted the Special Public Prose cutor to withdraw from the prosecution.
Resort is had to law companyrts to harass politi cal rivals.
The Vigilance Department submitted a charge sheet against respondent No.
After companysidering the matter from all angles, the Chief Minister passed an order dated 13.11.1980 that the case be withdrawn.
It is possi ble for Government to take numberice of the intense political rivalry between Smt.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
