Jharkhand High Court
Dipesh Chandak vs The State Of Jharkhand Through C.B.I ... on 23 March, 2018
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 906 of 2018
---
Dipesh Chandak ..... Petitioner
vs.-
The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I .......Opposite party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Kumar Sahay, Adv.
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, A.S.G.I
---
2/23.3.2018 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5 th March, 2018 passed
in R.C. Case No. 38(A) of 1996 by learned court of Special Judge -VII, C.B.I (AHD Scam), Ranchi, wherein he has been arraigned as an accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr. P. C and directed to face trial.
Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner submits that this case relates to fraudulent withdrawal from Dumka Treasury. Petitioner was not a supplier to Animal Husbandry Department at Dumka nor is a Government servant. Petitioner is a prosecution witness no. 217 in the instant case. This petitioner had made a disclosure statement on 7th August, 1998 in connection with another Fodder Scam Case, in which he was granted pardon by learned Court on 28 th August, 1998 in terms of Section 306 Cr. P. C. The statement of the petitioner has been used by the C.B.I in 13 such Fodder Scam Cases to nail the accused of the charges. There is no opinion expressed by C.B.I or the Public Prosecutor that the petitioner had failed to make true and correct disclosure in terms of his disclosure statement. No conditions pre- requisite for exercising the power under Section 308 Cr. P. C have been made out. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Apex Court had in the case of the petitioner in Cr. Appeal No. 103 of 2004 relating to prosecution in respect of offences under the Income Tax Act alleging filing of false Income Tax Return, been pleased to hold at para-13 that pardon granted would operate in respect of all offences pertaining to that transaction. The Apex Court proceeded to stay the trial for the offences under Income Tax Act, till trial of the case in which pardon is granted is over. It further observed that if appellant makes a full and complete 2. disclosure, then the prosecution under Sections 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act should not be allowed to proceed. Liberty was granted to the appellant to apply for quashing that prosecution at that stage. Learned court has in a completely misconceived manner proceeded to arraign the petitioner as an accused in the aforesaid background circumstances. No notice to show cause has either been given to him. If the impugned order is allowed to sustain, it would result in miscarriage of justice.
Learned counsel representing the C.B.I has submitted that the order of arraignment dated 5th March, 2018 has itself been challenged by the C.B.I so far as it relates to prosecution witnesses and Investigating Officer. He would address the Court in the present matter as well so far as question of law and other material facts in issue are concerned.
Since the instant matter arises out of the common order dated 5th March, 2018 passed by learned court of Special Judge -VII, C.B.I (AHD Scam), Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 38(A) of 1996, which are under challenge in Cr. M. P. No. 901 of 2018 and other Cr. Miscellaneous Petitions, let the instant matter be tagged along with the aforesaid case.
Let the matter appear after 3 weeks on 27 th April, 2018 as unfixed cases under the appropriate heading.
In the meantime, operation of the impugned order dated 5th March, 2018 passed by learned court of Special Judge -VII, C.B.I (AHD Scam), Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 38(A) of 1996 arraigning the petitioner as accused and directing him to appear and face trial, shall remain stayed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J) jk