Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through C.B.I. ... on 13 March, 2019
Author: B.B. Mangalmurti
Bench: B.B. Mangalmurti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.1137 of 2018
Dilip Kumar Singh ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. .... .... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate
For the C.B.I. : Mr. R.N. Prasad, Advocate
--------
03/13.03.2019 Head learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the C.B.I.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this petitioner had earlier approached this Court against the rejection of the discharge application which was numbered as Cr. Revision No.648 of 2016. This Court by terms of order dated 22nd June, 2018 quashed the impugned order dated 30th January, 2016 passed in R.C. Case No. 03(A)/2010-R by the court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi and the matter was remanded back to the court concerned for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing respective sides. He further submitted that after hearing both the sides, the court below again by impugned order dated 27th July, 2018 has rejected his application for discharge. He also submitted that the court below has again not discussed the materials collected against this petitioner and has merely reiterated the averments made in the charge-sheet. He further submitted that one information obtained by Shri Sardendu Nag, Advocate through R.T.I. from the Department of Road Construction, Road Circle, Saraikella-Kharsawan dated 10.01.2012 which has been marked as Annexure-6 herein will disclose that no defect and liabilities were found on the surfacing of bitumen and no amount was spent for the repair of the said road.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that this Court while setting aside the impugned order dated 30th January, 2016 has remanded back the matter before the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi for passing a fresh order as the court has not at all considered the materials collected in course of investigation and has not given any independent finding to that effect. He further submitted that now the court below after consideration of the materials collected against this petitioner, who is none other than the Director of the Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. who was executing the contract work of -2- widening and strengthening of the road and the documents submitted with regard to obtaining the bitumen from the oil companies had submitted forged documents to the Department. This petitioner along with his brother was operating a bank account in which the payment received from the Road Construction Department was credited. Although, as per allegation, no such bitumen were purchased from any oil company either Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. or Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Now the court below has already framed charge upon co-accused including this petitioner.
Considering the above submission of the parties and on perusal of the papers attached with this application, it appears that earlier this Court has remanded the matter for passing a fresh order after considering the materials collected against this petitioner. From the impugned order dated 27 th July, 2018, it appears that the court below had discussed the materials collected against this petitioner and has come to the finding that this petitioner being one of the Director of the company cannot avoid his liability of submitting false and forged bitumen invoices, showing procurement of bitumen worth Rs.2,08,20,296/- purportedly issued from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Ranchi and also getting its payment credited in the bank account which was operated by him as well as by his brother. The court below further found sufficient materials for framing charge upon this petitioner and found prima facie case against him and thereby dismissed the application for discharge filed on behalf of this petitioner.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (2) JLJR 320 (SC) has held that at the time of consideration of the discharge application or an order of framing charge may not require meticulous examination of voluminous materials and the court is only required to see the materials on record which reasonably connects an accused with the alleged crime.
Thus, finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, instant application is dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned.
(B.B. Mangalmurti, J.) Rohit