The High Court
Case Details
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.239 of 2013 Deo Mani Singh………………………………Petitioner V E R S U S State of Jharkhand through Vigilance….Opposite Party CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate & Rupesh Singh and A.K.Tiwary, Advocate For the Vigilance : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate 9/ 07.08.2013. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 10.9.2012 passed in Vigilance P.S. case no.30 of 1999 (Special Case No.7 of 1999) whereby the court refused to accept final form whereunder the Investigating Officer on reinvestigation of the case had exonerated the petitioner from accusation. At the same time, the order dated 5.5.2001 has also been sought to be quashed whereby cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 353, 467, 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and also under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken against the petitioner. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.9.1999 the informant visited the premises of M/s. Spriha Steel Pvt. Ltd. for its inspection, during which when it was found that theft of electric energy is being committed in large scale, he informed it to Head office of the Board. Upon which a team headed by this petitioner was constituted for inspection. During inspection it was found that two furnaces capacity of which was 4.128 M.T and 4.205 M.T were being used though the consumer had declared the capacity of both furnaces as 6 M.T. Thereby the consumer was found using excess load illegally of 1502.5 K.V.A than the sanctioned load of 2940 K.V.A. Further three transformers were found there capacity of which had been shown as 2000 K.V.A, 2000 K.V.A and 400 K.V.A but in fact, it were of the capacities of 4102 K.V.A , 3338 K.V.A and 935 K.V.A. Thus, total capacity comes to 5583 K.V.A over which sanctioned load should have been of 4443 Kilo Watt but it was only 2940 K.V.A. Further it was found that on 15.1.1998 an application was filed by the consumer to increase the sanctioned load from 1600 K.V.A to 2940 K.V.A upon which the then Superintending Engineer, Y.P.Singh made recommendation on 24.3.1998 for enhancement. Accordingly, the then General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer increased it for three months. But the said Y.P.Singh did not get an agreement executed even after lapse of 17 months. However, successor of Y.P.Singh, the informant executed the agreement on 7.9.2009. Thus, it has been alleged that role of
Legal Reasoning
Mr.Y.P.Singh appears to be suspicious. In these manners, the consumer had been committing theft of electricity on large scale continuously. On such allegation, a case was lodged which was registered as Vigilance P.S. case no.30 of 1999 under Sections 120B, 201, 353, 379, 467, 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act as well as under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Mr.Y.P.Singh, the then Electrical Superintending Engineer and Ram Swaroop Bhartia and Rajesh Kumar Bhartia of M/s. Spriha Steel Pvt. Ltd. After investigation, the Vigilance submitted charge sheet on 31.1.2000 against Rajesh Kumar Bhartia, Managing Director of M/s. Spriha Steel Pvt. Ltd. However, the case was kept open for investigation relating to other accused. In course of time, a supplementary charge sheet was submitted wherein this petitioner, at whose instance, raid had been laid in the premises of M/s. Spriha Steel Pvt. Ltd., was made accused along with others whereas Y.P.Singh, who was named accused was exonerated on the ground that Y.P.Singh, the then Electrical Superintending Engineer, Ranchi could not get the agreement executed with the consumer nearly for 17 months due to the reason of extension of time of execution of the agreement by the petitioner without there being any recommendation of his subordinate and thereby Y.P.Singh is not responsible for it. This accusation was made on the basis of a letter dated 31.12.1998 said to have been written by Y.P.Singh to this petitioner whereby Y.P.Singh had written to this petitioner for not extending the date of execution of the agreement. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner when the petitioner came to know about it, he made representation before the Director General, Cabinet Vigilance Department, BSEB Cell, Patna requesting therein to investigate the matter on the point of the genuinity of that letter. At the same time, the petitioner also made representation before the Vigilance Commissioner, Cabinet Vigilance Department, Bihar, Patna which did find favour and accordingly, Investigating Officer filed an application before the Special Judge allowing him to go for further investigation as certain new facts have come to light. However, that prayer was rejected on the ground that the facts which are said to have come to light have not been mentioned. However, again an application was filed stating therein about the facts which got transpired later on. This time, the prayer was allowed. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer took up the matter for further investigation/reinvestigation. On making thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer came to conclusion that there has been absolutely no material showing his culpability in any manner in the alleged offence and accordingly, final form was submitted exonerating the petitioner from accusation. In spite of it learned Special Judge did not accept the final form which has given cause of action to the petitioner for filing this application as prayer which was made was taken to be as that of discharge. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was the person, who had headed the team to laid raid in the premises of M/s. Spriha Steel Pvt. Ltd. and only at his instance, the case was lodged when it was found that M/s. Spriha Steel Pvt. Ltd. had indulged in committing theft of electricity in large scale continuously. Before that the petitioner had extended time of execution of the agreement thrice but it had been done on the recommendation made by Y.P.Singh and that even prior to the petitioner granting extension of time, the petitioner’s predecessor had also extended time for six months but he has never been made accused and that act of the petitioner of extending time for having agreement with the consumer, cannot be an act of connivance as this act never caused any loss to Electricity Board as unless and until consumer enters into an agreement, the consumer cannot get electricity on the basis of sanctioned additional load but the court without appreciating this, did not accept final form whereby this petitioner has been exonerated and thereby that order is fit to be set aside. Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that it is true that correct fact had never been placed before the earlier Investigating Officer and on the misconception of fact, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner. When the Vigilance came to know about the correct fact, the matter was reinvestigated. During which, it was found that the letter no.1954 dated 31.12.1998 under which claim was put forth by Y.P.Singh, that objection had been raised over the extension of the period, it was found to be fabricated and that in course of reinvestigation, it also transpired as is appearing from paragraph 135 of the case diary, that extension of time granted by the petitioner had nothing to do with the theft of electricity or loss to the Board as unless than until the consumer enters into an agreement with respect to extra load, the consumer would never be getting additional electrical energy on the basis of sanctioned extra load. Thus, it is quite evident that earlier the petitioner had been charge sheeted on the assumption that this petitioner in spite of objection being raised by Y.P.Singh granted extension of time thrice for execution of the agreement but during reinvestigation, it was found to be otherwise wherein it was found that it was on the recommendation made by Y.P.Singh, time had been extended. Further it does appear that since consumer had not entered into an agreement for having extra sanctioned load, he, as per the case of the Vigilance itself did not derive any benefit. In that event, it does not stand to reason as to how the petitioner did connive with M/s. Spriha Steel pvt. Ltd. in the commission of offence of forgery, cheating and misappropriation. Further, nothing was placed on the record that the petitioner by corrupt or illegal means took pecuniary advantage by abusing his position as public servant. Under the circumstances, there does not appear to be any material for putting the petitioner for trial. Accordingly, the petitioner is discharged from accusation.
Decision
In the result, this application stands allowed. ND/ ( R.R. Prasad, J.)