S. Murtaza Fazal Ali JUDGMENT
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th August, 1976 of the High Court of Orissa by which the High Court has upheld the order of the Special Judge, Puri discharging respondents No. 1 and 2.
2. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and center round an alleged conspiracy said to have been entered into between respondents No. 1 and 2 in order to commit offences under Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 120B I.P.C. The main charge against the respondents was that between 19-2-1972 to 30-3-1972 the respondents entered into an agreement for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary advantage for respondent No. 1 P.K. Samal and in pursuance of the said conspiracy the second respondent Debi Prasad Jena, who was the Land Acquisition Officer aided and abetted the first respondent in getting a huge sum of money for a land acquired by the Government which in fact belonged to the Government itself and respondent No. 1 was a lessee thereof. It is averred in the charge-sheet that respondent No. 1 by abusing his official position concealed the fact that the land which was the subject matter of acquisition and was situated in Cuttack Cantonment was really Khasmahal land belonging to the Government and having made it appear that he was the undisputed owner of the same, got a compensation of Rs. 4,18,642.55. The charge-sheet contains a number of circumstances from which the inference of the conspiracy is sought to be drawn by the police. After the charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Judge, the prosecution requested him to frame a charge against the respondents. The Special Judge, Puri after having gone through the charge-sheet and statements made by the witnesses before the police as also other documents came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground for framing a charge against the respondents and he accordingly discharged them under Section 227 of the CrPC, 1973 (hereinafter called the Code). The Special Judge has given cogent reasons for passing the order of discharge. The appellant went up to the High Court in revision against the order of the Special Judge refusing to frame the charge, but the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant and maintained the order of discharge passed by the Special Judge. Thereafter the appellant moved this Court by an application for special leave which having been granted to the appellant, the appeal is now set for hearing before us.
3. The short point which arises for determination in this case is the scope and ambit of an order of discharge to be passed by a Special Judge under Section 227 of the Code. The appeal does not raise any new question of law and there have been several authorities of the High Courts as also of this Court on the various aspects and grounds on which an accused person can be discharged, but as Section 227 of the Code is a new section and at the time when the application for special leave was filed, there was no direct decision of this Court on the interpretation of Section