Jharkhand High Court
M/S Apical Exim Private Limited vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 9 April, 2012
Author: R.R.Prasad
Bench: R.R.Prasad
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Cr. M. P. No.1806 of 2011
M/s. Apical Exim Private Limited............Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand and another.................Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner: Mr.Rajesh Kumar
For the C.B.I : Mr. M. Khan
For the State :Mr. D.K.Chakravorty
10/ 9.4.12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that with respect to commission of various offences punishable under Sections 467/468/471/420/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, Gua (Bada Jamda) P.S case no.28 of 2010 was registered against the petitioner. Subsequently, by virtue of notification dated 28.9.2010 issued under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the aforesaid case was taken over by the C.B.I and was registered as R.C.No.7(S) if 2919-AHD-R. Mr.Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though it is said that C.B.I has re-registered the case but, in fact, a new case has been instituted on the same facts as the District Police in spite of taking over the case by the C.B.I has submitted charge sheet against some of the accused persons and thereby it cannot be said that C.B.I. has simply registered a case and as such any institution of a case upon second F.I.R by the C.B.I on same allegation upon which Gua (Bada Jamda) P.S. case no.28 of 2010 had been lodged is not permissible in view of the decision rendered in a case of T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala and others [(2010) 5 SCC 181].
As against that, Mr.Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I submits that upon issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the C.B.I has re-registered the case and thereby it cannot be said that a fresh F.I.R had been lodged by the C.B.I. It was further submitted on behalf of the C.B.I that it is not true that two F.I.R have been lodged against this petitioner as so far his information goes this petitioner had never been made accused in Gua (Bada Jamda) P.S. case no.28 of 2010.
However, there has been no answer to the question as to when the matter was taken up for investigation by the C.B.I, how the District Police proceeded with the investigation of the case which had been lodged earlier and even the charge sheet was submitted against some of the accused persons.
Under the circumstances, let this matter be listed on 30.4.2012 so that learned counsel appearing for the State may take instruction in this regard so that a clear picture be put before this Court as to whether Gua (Bada Jamda) P.S. case no.28 of 2010 is being prosecuted even after taking over the case by the C.B.I. Till then interim order passed on 19.12.2011 shall continue. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr.D.K.Chakravorty, learned counsel for the State for needful.
( R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/