Manoj Ram @ Manoj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.115 of 2012 (5) dt.29-01-2013 raiding team searched his person and in course of search, A.T.M. Cards of different banks were recovered from his possession but, the same did not find mention in the seizure list. The said A.T.M. Cards were misused by the trap team and a huge amount was withdrawn from several accounts belonging to the petitioner and his family members. When the petitioner received information regarding misuse of the A.T.M. Cards, he made a complaint to the Special Vigilance Judge, Muzaffarpur through Jail Superintendent. The learned Special Judge sent a copy of the complaint made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance for the needful. The Superintendent of Police, on receipt of such complaint, got an inquiry done and found the allegations made by the petitioner to be true. Accordingly, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 75 of 2011, was instituted on 1.10.2011 under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(i) (d) and 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against one Prakash Kujur, a Constable-cum-member of the raiding team and Premjeet Kumar, a computer operator posted in the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna and investigation was taken up. In course of investigation, the investigating officer found the involvement of the petitioner and as such he was also made an accused in the case. In the aforesaid factual background, the present writ 3 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.115 of 2012 (5) dt.29-01-2013 petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over investigation of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 75 of 2011 from the Vigilance. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since the officers of the Vigilance Department are directly involved in the aforesaid case, the petitioner has lost his faith in the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance submits that the petitioner’s apprehension is ill- founded. His conduct is of habitual corrupt public servant. His complicity has come to light in five cases belonging to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which are as follows:- (i) Bairgania (Sitamarhi) P.S. Case No. 82 of 08 dated 25.6.2008 under Section 7/13 Section P.C. 431/379/420/120B/109/504/34 Indian Penal Code. Act (ii) Riga (Sitamarhi) P.S. Case No. 82 of 08 dated 23.6. 08 under Section 7/13 P.C. Act and under Section 431/379/420/120B/109/ 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) Vigilance P.S. Case No. 31 of 2010 dated 22.4.2010 under Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and Section 420/467/468/471/477A/120 B of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) Vigilance P.S Case No. 54 of 2011 dated 12.8.2011 under Section 7/9/13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (v) Vigilance P.S. Case No. 75/11 dated 1.10.2011 under section 7/13(2) read with 4 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.115 of 2012 (5) dt.29-01-2013 section 13(1)(d)/13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act and Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that after getting trapped, the petitioner plotted a sinister design and first of all lured the Constable, Prakash Kujur, who was a member of the Trap Team by offering him the two ATM Cards in a deceitful manner while being taken to Patna in a vehicle. On reaching Patna, the petitioner disclosed the PIN Codes of the two ATM Cards to Prakash Kujur and asked him to withdraw money from the related bank accounts since these accounts were likely to be seized as his house was also being searched by the Vigilance Team. The petitioner also lured Prakash Kujur by saying that he will be at liberty to keep some money for himself and the rest he can give to the petitioner’s family. The petitioner also lured the raiding team Incharge, Sri Chandra Prakash Paswan, a Deputy Superintendent of Police by surreptitiously making available another five ATM Cards and also disclosed the PIN Codes. The petitioner did not complain of any wrong doings at the time of his production before Special Vigilance Court, Muzaffarpur. He waited for ten days so that the withdrawal takes effect. When he came to know about the withdrawal, he made a written complaint Jail Superintendent that his ATM Cards have been snatched and PIN 5 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.115 of 2012 (5) dt.29-01-2013 Code have been obtained forcefully and a huge amount has been withdrawn from his bank account. When the said complaint was filed, the same was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance by the learned Special Judge. An inquiry was conducted by a team led by the Superintendent of Police of Vigilance Investigation Bureau. On the basis of the enquiry report, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 75 of 2011 was instituted and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed against Prakash Kujur, Premjeet Kumar Sinha, Chandra Prakash Paswan and petitioner. In the investigation adequate evidences have been found regarding the petitioner’s involvement along with other accused persons in the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that a thorough investigation with all technical, oral and circumstantial evidences have been done in the case and after obtaining prosecution sanction of the competent authority charge sheet has already been submitted in the court and the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, on receipt of the police report, has already taken cognizance of the offence. Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI submits that he has instruction to oppose the prayer. He submits that since the investigation is over, there is 6 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.115 of 2012 (5) dt.29-01-2013 nothing left to be investigated. It is true that the basic rule of law is that the investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious. In the present case, the moment complaint was received by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, he got the matter inquired into and upon finding substance in the allegation got a case instituted. The investigating officer has found the complicity of one Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was heading the raiding team, one Constable and one Data Entry Operator of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau in the alleged offence. They all have been sent up for trial. The petitioner was also an accomplice in the offence and thus he has also been sent for trial. There is nothing to suggest that the investigation was not carried out in fair and impartial manner. In case of Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat & Ors since reported in 2011(5) SCC 79, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is trite law that the accused persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment of an investigation agency. The accused persons cannot chose as to which investigation agency must investigate the alleged offence committed by them. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that when investigation by the State 7 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.115 of 2012 (5) dt.29-01-2013 Police is not in proper direction due to involvement of high police officials, it is always open to the court to hand over the investigation to an independent and specialized agency like the CBI. However, in the present case, there is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be inferred that the investigation by the Vigilance was not in the proper direction. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and Ors v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors has considered at length the power of the High Court to direct investigation by the CBI into a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within a territorial jurisdiction of the State and while taking the view that the High Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cautioned that the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations. It would be advantageous to quote para 70 of the said judgment of the Constitution Bench and, as such, the same is quoted hereunder:- “Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasize that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed 8 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.115 of 2012 (5) dt.29-01-2013 limitations exercise constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has _eveled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramification or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations”. As noted above, in the present case, the Vigilance has not tried to shield its officers from prosecution. The leader of the 9 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.115 of 2012 (5) dt.29-01-2013 raiding team, an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and two other officials along with the petitioner have been sent up for trial. The petitioner is accused in several cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. His apprehension in respect to fair investigation of the case seems to be ill-founded. It is well settled that an accused of a case do not have any say in the matter of an investigation agency. He cannot chose as to which investigating agency must investigate the alleged offence committed by him. Furthermore, in the present case, the investigation is over and charge sheet has already been submitted in the court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur. The prayer of the petitioner has become infructuous. Once the charge sheet is submitted in the court, it is for the court concerned to deal with the matter further in accordance with law. For the reasons assigned hereinabove and the law laid down by the Apex Court, I do not find any merit in the present case. It is dismissed, accordingly. Sanjeet/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)