Pradip Mohanty, J.
1. This revision is directed against the Order Dated 04.06.2007 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur in G.R. Case No. 2 of 1995 (V) rejecting an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
2. The Petitioner has been implicated for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Case of the Petitioner is that initially he entered into the service of Orissa Road Transport Company (a private company) as a Lower Division Clerk on 02.12.1964. In June, 1979, he was promoted as a Junior Accountant. On 13.08.1990, the said company was taken over by the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation. Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Public Relation Officer. According to the Petitioner, one J. Rama Chandra Rao, Inspector of Police (Vigilance), who had personal enmity with him, raided his house and office after obtaining search warrant from the Court and ultimately submitted charge sheet showing disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 5, 87, 384/- in his possession without taking into consideration his income from different sources to the tune of Rs. 8, 72, 435/-. As, according to the Petitioner, he is not a public servant, he filed a petition praying for discharge. But, the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance), by the impugned order, rejected the said application, with the finding that there is prima facie case against the Petitioner for being in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income,
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the investigation was perfunctory and perverse inasmuch as the Investigation Officer had not taken into account all the legal sources of income of the Petitioner before filing the charge sheet. Moreover, the Petitioner does not come under the purview of Public Servant since originally he is an employee of a private company. It was incumbent upon the Trial Court to verify the legal sources of income of the Petitioner and his plea that he is not public servant. Instead of doing that, it has rejected the application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. which is illegal and arbitrary.
4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, vehemently contends that the Petitioner is a Government Servant. The Gazette Notification dated 14.08.1990 clearly reveals that the entire organization of the O.R.T. merged with the O.S.R.T.C, a Government of Orissa undertaking with effect from 16.08.1990 and all the employees became the employees of the O.S.R.T.C.
5. In support of their respective contentions, both parties relied on different decisions of the Supreme Court. The relevant decisions are : 1977CriLJ1606 (State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh) : 1979CriLJ154 (Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal) and 2005(30) OCR (SC) 177 (State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).
6. Perused the records and the decisions cited at the Bar. In the instant case, FIR was registered on 31.01.1995 and after closure of investigation, final form was submitted against the Petitioner. The Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, after perusal of the materials available on record, took cognizance under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Before this Court, some documents have been filed by the Petitioner to show that he had other sources of income besides his salary. It is not known whether those documents were produced before the Investigating Officer, but he did not consider the same. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that those documents, though filed before the Trial Court, were not taken into consideration. But, as per the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra), the accused has no right to produce any document at the stage of framing charge or taking cognizance. At such stages, the Trial Court can only look into the charge sheet documents, which are produced by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, no fault can be found with the Trial Court if it did not take into consideration the documents filed by the Petitioner, if really those were produced before it.
7. As to the submission that the Petitioner does not come under the purview of public servant, the Gazette Notification dated 14.08,1990 speaks otherwise. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission. However, it is open for the Petitioner to raise his plea before the Trial Court by adducing/producing evidence and in the event such plea is raised the Trial Court shall consider and answer the same in accordance with law.
For the foregoing discussions, this Court does not find any/reason to interfere with the impugned order. As a result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Since the case is dragging on from 1995, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a year.