Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.70 of 2012 ====================================================== Shamim Ahmad, S/o Md. Zubair Ahmad, R/o Mohalla-Samanpura, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Cabinet Vigilance Bureau, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Superintendent of Police (Cooperative Cell) Vigilance, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Investigating Officer, Vigilance Bureau, Patna. 4. Harwansh Rai, S/o Mahendra Rai, R/o Bawanghat, P.S.-Mahua, District-Vaishali. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Advocate. Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH CAV ORDER 8 25-02-2013 In para-1, the petitioner has made the following prayers:- “1. That the instant writ application is being filed on behalf of the sole petitioner for issuance of writ/writs, order/orders direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for the following relief/reliefs:- “(i) For issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.11.2011 issued under the signature of Officer on Special Duty, 2 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.70 of 2012 (8) 2 / 7 General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder the sanction against the petitioner has been taken under Section 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (ii) For further quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Special Case No. 163 of 2002 arising out of Mahua P.S. Case No. 170 of 1992 registered for the offences committed under Sections 420/467/468/471 Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (iii) For issuance of any other relief/reliefs or order/orders or direction/directions of which petitioner may entitle for and your Lordships may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice”. 2. One Harbansh Rai, submitted a written complaint before the S.H.O. Mahua on 4.9.1992, alleging inter alia that Sri Raghunath Jha, the Chairman of Bharatpur Singhara Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as “the PACS”) had defalcated lacs of rupees by making false signature of agriculture loan members. It is further alleged that Raghunath Jha had also taken the loan amount on behalf of the persons who do not come within the territory of the said PACS area. He also 3 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.70 of 2012 (8) 3 / 7 withdrew amount in the name of non existing persons. The allegation is that the accused had siphoned of Rs.2,11,076/- in the name of 157 fictitious persons. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid information given to the police Mahua P.S. Case No. 170 of 1992 dated 4.9.1992 was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 4. It is contended that from bare perusal of the FIR, it would appear that the petitioner is neither named nor there is any whisper against him. The police took up investigation of the case in the year 1992 itself and during course of investigation certain other persons were made accused, who were directly involved with the distribution of the loan i.e., the officials of PACS and the Block Co-operative Extension Officer. 5. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was Incharge of 18 PACS during the relevant period including the Bharatpur Singhara PACS. The complicity of the petitioner had never surfaced in the alleged offence. He contended that the matter was also inquired into by an Executive Officer upon the direction of the Magistrate, Vaishali and in the said inquiry report also the name of petitioner did not find place rather the complicity 4 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.70 of 2012 (8) 4 / 7 of officials of PACS and Co-operative Bank had surfaced and the report was submitted to the District Magistrate, Vaishali for necessary action. 6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the police have submitted charge sheet against four persons including one FIR named accused person whose complicity had come during course of investigation and there was no occasion to implicate the petitioner in the present case. However, due to malice and out of party politics, after lapse of fifteen years, the petitioner has been roped in the present case. 7. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that ignoring deficiency of evidence against the petitioner sanction has been accorded against him by the General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna vide Memo No. 12823 dated 24.11.2011 for prosecution under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. According to him, the sanction order against the petitioner demonstrates a complete non-application of mind on the part of respondent authorities. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the Vigilance submitted that after thorough investigation the case has been found true 5 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.70 of 2012 (8) 5 / 7 against the FIR named accused, namely, Raghunath Jha and five other non-FIR accused persons. Initially, charge sheet had been submitted on 19.9.2007 against four persons, namely, Raghunath Jha, Vijay Kumar Singh, Harendra Kumar Singh and Lalan Prasad Choudhary. However, a supplementary charge sheet has already been filed against the remaining two accused persons, namely, Wasim Akhtar and Shamim Akhtar (the petitioner) on 13.9.2012 in the court under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) IPC and 13(2) read with 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 9. Sri Sharma further submitted that in course of investigation, complicity of the petitioner has transpired. There is sufficient incriminating documentary evidence against him. According to him, while discharging his official duties, the petitioner had flouted the rules and procedures and signed upon erroneous, forged and fictitious credit limits of loanees. On account of lapses made by the petitioner, lacs of rupees were defalcated by making false signature of agriculture loan members. 10. Sri Sharma further contended that a duty was cast upon the petitioner to see that the members selected for sanction of loan must be genuine farmers. However, the petitioner failed to discharge his duty honestly and, as such, the alleged 6 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.70 of 2012 (8) 6 / 7 scam could take place. He further submitted that the sanctioning authority has accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioner after being satisfied with his culpability in the alleged offence. According to him, the entire records containing the materials collected against the petitioner had been placed before the sanctioning authority. 11. It is relevant to note it here that the impugned memo dated 14th November, 2011 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition is merely a communication of letter dated 15th November, 2011 issued under the signature of the Officer on Special Duty, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali whereby it has been communicated that the Law Department vide order no. 8104 dated 11.11.2011 has already accorded sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. The order dated 11.11.2011 granting sanction for prosecution against the petitioner has been brought on record by the petitioner by filing I.A. No. 96 of 2013. From a perusal of the order granting sanction, it is apparent that the records containing materials collected against the petitioner in course of investigation were placed before the sanctioning authority. 12. Thus, I do not find any merit in the submission 7 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.70 of 2012 (8) 7 / 7 made on behalf of the petitioner that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind to the materials on record before according an order of sanction. 13. I further find that the allegations made in the FIR do constitute a cognizable offence. In that view of the matter, the entire proceeding of the case cannot be quashed. 14. Admittedly, the investigation is over. The investigating officer has already submitted charge sheet in the court. Once the investigation agency has submitted their report, it is for the learned Special Judge concerned to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 15. I find no merit in the present writ petition. It is dismissed, accordingly. Sanjeet/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)