Dr.Jagdish vs Central Bureau Of Investigatio on 24 February, 2012

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Dr.Jagdish vs Central Bureau Of Investigatio on 24 February, 2012

This revision application is directed against the order dated 7.2.2011 passed by learned Special Judge,C.B.I.-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 18(A) of 2009(D), whereby an application filed for discharge of the petitioner from the offences punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act was rejected.

Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that a product of M/s A.R.C. Insulations and Insulators Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata was given to CIMFR, Dhanbad for testing whereby Physio-Mechanical test was to be done by Shankar Prasad, a Senior Scientist, and the chemical test was to be carried out by this petitioner, a Junior Scientist, who on receiving the product tested it and submitted its report on 13.11.2009 to Shankar Prasad, a Senior Scientist. Thereafter, complainant-Javed when approached Shankar Prasad, a Senior Scientist, for getting test report, he asked for money for providing favorable test report. Upon it, a complaint was made to C.B.I. who laid a trap and said Shankar Prasad was caught red handed while accepting money, but the CBI has made this petitioner as an accused, as it is said that this petitioner was party to conspiracy for the reason that Shankar Prasad at one point of time is said to have asked Javed to talk to this petitioner relating to handing over of relevant report and payment of money but said Javed in his statement has not said so, rather by filing an application before the court he has stated that this petitioner had never made any demand and moreover, even the members of the trap team either pre-trap or post-trap have not said anything that while the conversation in between Javed and this petitioner was going on, this petitioner asked Javed to pay money to Mr. Shankar Prasad and, therefore, no sufficient material is there for framing charges against the petitioner but the trial court did not consider this aspect of the matter and rejected the plea and hence the order rejecting the prayer for discharge is fit to be set aside.

As against this, learned counsel for the C.B.I. by placing pre- trap memorandum submitted that in the said memorandum, it has come that when Javed approached Mr. Shankar Prasad, he asked Javed to have a talk with this petitioner and then Javed talked to him with respect to handing over of the report and payment of money and this shows the act of conspiracy with the other accused.

Upon it, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whatever incriminating material is there against the petitioner, that has not been supported by the members of the trap team and hence it is a fit case for discharge of the petitioner from the case.

It be stated that it is not a stage to appreciate the evidence, rather the stage is to look as to whether sufficient materials are there or not for framing the charges.

In my view, material, pointed out by learned counsel for the C.B.I., was sufficient for the court to refuse the prayer for discharge of the petitioner from the offences as alleged and thereby he did not commit any illegality in passing the order which is under challenge.

Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application and hence this application stands dismissed.

However, considering the future of the petitioner, a Junior Scientist, at stake, it would be desirable that the trial be concluded at the earliest, preferably within six months.

AKT                                                    (R.R. Prasad, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court