Judgment:
P.K. Mohanty, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 401. read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused, petitioner against the order dated 13-2-1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Keonjhar in framing the charges against the petitioner under Section 4 of the Orissa Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called as 'the Act').
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on an FIR being lodged by one Hamira Soren, a case under Section 384, IPC was registered against one Keshab Patra and Padmalochan Shah on the allegation that the informant who is a beneficiary of the Million Well Scheme was not allowed to dig well and whereas the aforesaid two accused persons forced the informant to sign on five pieces of blank papers in the month of March, 1993 despite his refusal to do so on the threat of Bhujali. Thereafter, the informant was asked by the Block Office to complete the digging of well failing which he will be liable to repay Rs. 16,200/- towards its cost. It was the case of the informant that he was not allowed to undertake any work nor he has been paid any money for the purpose of digging of well inasmuch as the accused persons named in the FIR had drawn money on the strength of the signatures extorted from him on blank papers. Charge-sheet was submitted on completion of investigation against the above two persons under Section 384,1PC and a case under Section 4 of the Act was also made out against the petitioner.
3. Heard Shri Debasis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. It is the submission of Sri Panda that in absence of any prima facie case and materials to make out a case under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the order of the learned Special Judge in framing charge against the petitioner is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that there being no material available on record to show a prima facie case that the petitioner has neglected any duty required to be performed by him under the Act, framing of charge against the petitioner is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside inasmuch as the petitioner has not done anything contrary to the provisions of the Act punishable under Section 4 thereof and as such the charge framed against him is to be set aside.
4. Before examining the contentions of the learned counsels, let me now consider the contents of the FIR lodged by Hamira Soren. It is alleged in the FIR that in the year 1993, there was a scheme for digging of wells under Million Well Scheme' under the Block. The Junior Engineer, Panda Babu of Ghasipura Block requested the informant that a well will be dug in the premises of informant's house, but he denied the same and intimated his inclination to dig a well himself to which Panda Babu said 'You Adibasi people cannot dig wells and Keshab Patra and Padmalochan Shah of your village would dig the well'. In January, 1993 the informant had been to Daitari, leaving his son Laxmidhar in the village and on 23-1-1993 Keshab Patra and Padmalochan Shah forcibly dug a well in his bari. But since there was obstruction of stone, they dug the well in the agricultural field of the informant. It is stated that after coming from Daitari, the informant met the Block Development Officer, Ghasipura and requested to allow him to dig the well and wanted to know why others should do that in his land. During discussion, Junior Engineer Panda Babu again said 'Keshab and Padmalochan will dig the well, you cannot do so' and as such he returned back home. In the month of March, Keshab and Padmalochan asked the informant to give his thumb impression in five blank papers and the informant having refused, Keshab gave slap saying that they belong to 'Bhujali Party' and they may pierce Bhujati and as such out of fear, the informant gave thumb impressions in five blank papers. Now he having received notice from the Block Development Officer asking to refund Rs. 16,500/- unless he digs well, he enquired and ascertained that Rs. 16,500/- has been drawn from the Block Office in his name whereas he has absolutely not taken any such amount. It is therefore, alleged that Keshab and Padmalochan with the connivance of the Junior Engineer, Panda Babu have dug six wells and drawn the amount as cost of digging. Further it is stated that the cost of digging would not be more than Rs. 3,000/-to Rs. 4000/- per well.
5. On a perusal of the charge framed against the petitioner by the learned Special Judge, Keonjhar, it is seen that the petitioner has been charged on the following head :
'In January, 1993 at village Khajurpara (Baripal) being a public servant and not being a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, wilfully neglected in his duty required to be performed by him by digging a well in the ban land of Hamira Soren against his will.'
It further appears from the evidence recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Jasoni Soren, wife of Hamira Soren and Karunakar Runduia and Chandramani Soren that the entire allegation is against Keshab Chandra Patra and Padmalochan Shah. No allegation appears to have been made against the present petitioner, so far as it relates to commission of an offence under Section 4 of the Act.
6. Section 4 of the Act reads thus :
'Punishment for neglect of duties--Whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, wilfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year.'
7. On a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that a public servant who does not belong to a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and who wilfully neglects his duty required to be performed by him under the Act, shall be punishable under this Section of the Act. On a reading of the FIR, the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 164, Cr PC including the statement of the wife of the informant, I do not find any allegation against the petitioner that he being a public servant has failed to perform any duty whatsoever contemplated under the Act. It may be borne in mind that Section 3 of the Act is with regard to punishment for offences on atrocities. There was no material whatsoever before the learned Special Judge then the petitioner being a public servant wilfully neglected his duty required to be performed under this Act and as such the learned Special Judge could not have framed the charge against the petitioner as has been done by him. Order dated 13-2-1995 may be profitably quoted hereunder :
'The accused persons namely, Keshaba Chandra Patra, Padmalochan Shah and Aurabinda Panda are present. The learned Counsel for the State and the learned defence counsel are present. Perused the materials on record. Heard on the prosecution and the defence. I am of the opinion that there is prima facie case under Section 384/34, IPC read with under Section 3(1)(v) of S.C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act against the accused persons Keshaba Chandra Patra and Padmalochan Shah and under Section 4 of S.C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act against the accused Aurabinda Panda. Accordingly, charges under Section 384/34, IPC read with Section 3(1)(v) of S.C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act against the accused persons Keshaba Chandra Patra and Padmalochan Shah and charge under Section 4 of S.C. and S.T. (P. A.) Act against the accused Aurabinda Panda are framed. The same being read over and explained to the accused persons, they plead not guilty and claimed for trial.
8. From the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, so far as the allegations against the petitioner in the FIR as well as in the statements recorded under Section 164, Cr PC, there appears to have been no allegation against the petitioner that he had ever dug or caused digging of well in the land of the informant Hamira Soren against his will nor any other allegation to attract application of Section 4 of the Act. The charge framed by the learned Special Judge appears to be based on no allegation or insufficient allegation on record. The learned Special Judge also could not have come to a prima facie view that some materials were available against the petitioner for being charged under the aforesaid section.
9. In any view of the matter, I do not find any material on record to justify the order of the learned Special Judge in framing the charge under Section 4 of the Act against the petitioner as has been done and as such. I am inclined to quash and set aside the said charges against the petitioner. The revision is thus allowed and the charges framed by the learned Special Judge against the petitioner are hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.