Shashi Bhushan Singh, son of Sri Maksudan Singh, resident of Hawai Nagar, Birsa Chowk v. The State of Jharkhand through the Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Details
Cr.Rev. No.666 of 2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.666 of 2021 ----- Shashi Bhushan Singh, son of Sri Maksudan Singh, resident of Hawai Nagar, Birsa Chowk, P.O. & P.S. Jagarnathpur, Town Ranchi, District Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I) … … Opp. Party ------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------- For the Petitioner For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. Order No. 10/Dated 9th February, 2024 ------ Prayer 1. The instant application has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, in Misc. Criminal Application No.146 of 2020 in connection with R.C. No. 17(S)/2013-R registered under section 420 /120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed for discharge of the petitioners from the criminal liability has been rejected by holding therein that there is sufficient prima-facie material available on record against the petitioner for the purpose of framing of charge for the alleged offences. Cr.Rev. No.666 of 2021 2 Facts 2. The factual matrix leading to filing of the instant case in brief reads as under:- Prosecution case was initiated on written complaint by one Abhishek Kumar, alleging therein that the complainant and his mother had booked 2000 square feet of land of khata no. 155, plot no. 541 in Aishwarya Residency, II Phase, Pundag, Ranchi, of M/s. Sanjeevani Buildcon (P) Ltd. Complainant has paid Rs. 9 lakhs in connection with that but neither the land was provided to him nor his money was returned. After repeated demands Rs. 4.5 lakh was returned to him but the rest amount was not returned. Later on, two cheques of Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 1,22,000/- respectively was given to the complainant which returned unpaid on presentation. Despite repeated demands of the complainant his money was not returned. On this written application an FIR dated 08.04.2012 was registered as Jagannathpur (Pundag) P.S. Case no. 96/12, for the offence under section 406, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The aforesaid case was subsequently been transferred for investigation to the CBI, ACB, Ranchi by the State of Jharkhand vide notification dated 15.01.2013 and accordingly the CBI has re-registered the case vide case no. RC/17(S)/2013-R under sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC. Cr.Rev. No.666 of 2021 3 against M/s Sanjivani Buildcon Private Limited, its directors and other co-accused. 4. After investigation of the case, the Charge-Sheet No. 13/2014 dated 30.09.2014 was submitted against the present petitioner and other co-accused persons under Section 120B read with Sections 420, of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. It is alleged that the petitioner before this Court was the then Halka Karmachari at the relevant point of time posted at Ratu circle and he was looking after the Halka covering village Pundag. It is alleged that the petitioner in the capacity of the then Halka Karmachari, Ratu Anchal, Ranchi, recommended mutation of excess land of 39.49 out of actual holding of 35.55 (19+16.55) dismal of land with the connivance of other accused persons. It is further alleged that 16.55 dismal land was purchased by Smt. Anamika Nandi of M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd and as against this 39.49 dismal land was sold to 09 different persons. Out of these 09 cases mutations of 04 cases were done on the recommendation of present petitioner. 6. It is further alleged that the present petitioner along with other accused persons hatched criminal conspiracy with private persons and abused their respective official positions and in pursuance thereof did excess mutation. Cr.Rev. No.666 of 2021 4 7. Accordingly, the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner has been received and cognizance of offence has been taken. Thereafter, the present petitioner had moved before this Court for quashing of the order taking cognizance vide Cr.M.P. No. 2867 of 2014, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2019. 8. Consequently, during the trial, a discharge petition was filed by the present petitioner but the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2020 which is assailed herein by way of the instant revision application.
Legal Reasoning
Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner 9. Learned senior counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been made accused in the present case only on the ground that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as Revenue Karamchari, and save and except, there is no material against the petitioner which shows petitioner’s involvement in the present crime. 10. It is further argued by learned Senior counsel that the petitioner being Halka Karmchari had no authority to order for mutation and he was only the recommending authority. Further, there is no material to show that he derived any pecuniary advantage by alleged act of favourably recommending for mutation. Cr.Rev. No.666 of 2021 5 11. It is contended that the role of Karamchari is defined under Section 13 of The Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and as per the provision of law this petitioner (Halka Karamchari) was duty bound to report the matter of transfer and it was for the Circle Officer to pass appropriate order after considering all relevant paper under Section 14 (1) which inter alia included the report under Sections 11, 12 & 13 of the Act 1973. 12. It is further submitted that on submission of the application by the applicant for mutation of land, the petitioner had verified right, title and possession of the vendor and the same was also verified from the statutory record (Register-II) in which names of recorded raiyats are mentioned and the recorded raiyats are still in possession of the land. 13. The learned Senior counsel has further submitted that in order to constitute an offence under Section 13 (1) (d), the elements of actus reus and mens rea both are to be present and in the instant case there is no element of mens rea involved and accordingly, provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not attracted and to buttress this limb of argument, he relied in the case of C.K.Jaffer Sharief v. State (Through CBI), (2013) 1 SCC 205. Cr.Rev. No.666 of 2021 6 14. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the law is well settled that for the purposes of attracting Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, dishonest intention should be since the very inception i.e., it should have been at the time of sale itself and it is not in dispute that at the time of sale of property involved in this case, the petitioner was nowhere in the picture and to buttress this limb of argument, he relied upon the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, (2022) 7 SCC 124. 15. It is further argued by the learned Senior counsel
Decision
for the that the impugned order is a non-speaking order as no reason has been given for rejection of discharge petition and the materials on the basis of which the prosecution is intended to be made has not been disclosed in the impugned order. 16. On the above said grounds, learned senior counsel prayed that the petitioner may be discharged from this case. Argument of the learned counsel for the CBI 17. Learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the grounds which have been taken in the instant Criminal Revision application, had already been pressed into service by the petitioners in the quashing petition before this Court, as such, the same has attained its finality. Cr.Rev. No.666 of 2021 7 18. Learned Counsel appearing for the C.B.I submits that after proper investigation, charge sheet has been submitted, sanction for prosecution has been received, cognizance of offence has been taken by the learned court below and there is enough material collected during investigation showing more than prima-facie case to proceed against the petitioner. 19. It is further contended that the petitioner is Halka Karamchari and there is concrete evidence against him that while abusing his position, he in collusion with the land developer company, had mutated the excess land. 20. He further submitted that the other records of Circle Officer being maintained and in any case the area of mutation should not exceed the area of land if the area of mutation exceeds the area of land the respective Circle Officer, Circle Inspector and Karamchari are fully responsible. 21. He further submits that there are restrictions in discharging the petitioners and at this stage a roving enquiry is not required. To buttress this limb of argument he has put reliance upon the judgment as rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Others [(2022) 12 SCC 657]. Cr.Rev. No.666 of 2021 8 22. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that the order rejecting discharge petition may not be interfered with. Analysis 23. In view of aforesaid submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the instant revision petition as well as the impugned order and finds that it is not in dispute that the case was originally instituted by the local police on written complaint by one Abhishek Kumar, which was numbered as Jagannathpur (Pundag) P.S Case No. 96/2012. In the First Information Report, it was alleged that the complainant and his mother had booked a plot of land in the name of “Aishwarya Residency, Pundag” of M/s. Sanjeevani Buildcon (P) Ltd. They were allowed piece of land at Pundag at a consideration amount through registered sale deed but were neither given possession of land nor could mutation of the land at Nagri or Ratu Anchal be done in their favour. 24. At the request received from the Government of Jharkhand followed by notifications issued under the provisions of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 the investigation of the case was taken over by Opposite party C.B.I for investigation. After investigation of the case, the Charge-Sheet No. 13/2014 dated 30.09.2014 was Cr.Rev. No.666 of 2021 9 submitted against the petitioner and other co-accused persons under Section 120B read with Sections 420, of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 25. The categorical accusation against the present petitioner that the petitioner being Halka Karmachari at the relevant point of time posted at Ratu circle and he was looking after the Halka covering village Pundag and he recommended mutation of excess land with the connivance of other accused persons. 26. Accordingly, the cognizance of offence has been taken and aggrieved from the order taking cognizance the present petitioner had moved before this Court for quashing of the same vide Cr.M.P. No. 2867 of 2014, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2019. 27. Consequently, a discharge petition was filed by the present petitioner but the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, in Misc. Criminal Application No.146 of 2020, which is the subject matter of the instant revision application. 28. Before adverting in to merit of the case this Court thinks fit to discuss the principle of discharge as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Cr.Rev. No.666 of 2021 10 29. There are two important components of discharge - (a). after hearing the submissions of the accused and (b). not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 30. The Hon’ble Apex Court while hearing the issue of ‘hearing the submissions of the accused’ has dealt with the same in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath