Sujata Dash vs State Of Odisha And Others

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Satapathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, affidavit filed by State contains vague allegation of aggregate value of jewellery items, of which inventory was made, to be between Rs.50-70 lakhs. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and submits, the deceased was a low paid employee of the cooperative. He misappropriated in excess of Rs.1 crore.

Mr. Das, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of Vigilance Department. He reiterates his submissions recorded in order dated 21st March, 2022 that no instructions were issued by his client regarding the locker and further that neither petitioner nor her husband were named as accused.

Paragraph-5 from said order dated 21st March, 2022 is reproduced below.

“5. At this stage Mr. Sahoo submits, petitioner be allowed to operate the locker. On query from Court Mr. Panda submits, though on behalf of Vigilance Department submissions have been made regarding petitioner and her husband not being accused but his client relies on First Information Report dated 31st December, 2020, wherein there is clear allegation against deceased husband of petitioner but recommendation of initiating criminal case against the other person, since petitioner died earlier, on 23rd  July, 2020.”

Court is in possession of submission from the Vigilance Department that there was no instruction, issued by his client, for operation of the locker being suspended. Also, neither petitioner nor her deceased husband were named as accused. State’s contention is that omission of petitioner’s husband being named is because he died. The situation emerging is that the vigilance investigation is not directed against petitioner. It is her bank locker and she claims the jewellery to be hers. The investigation was launched prior to 21st July, 2020 when, on instruction to Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Society, operation of the locker was stopped. The investigation is proceeding against another person. Till now the investigation could not produce a connection between the other person and contents of the locker.

Impugned letter dated 24th July, 2022 is set aside and quashed. Petitioner is at liberty to operate the locker with regard to contents therein. Mr. Sahu, learned advocate also appears on behalf of applicant in I.A. no.5102 of 2022, made by Panapana Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Ltd. for intervening in the hearing. Mr. Sahu was present throughout the hearing representing his client.

The writ petition is disposed of. I.A. no.5102 of 2022 is consequently also disposed of.

…………………….