Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Sinha And Ors. vs The State Of Jharkhand Through C.B.I. ... on 21 June, 2007
Equivalent citations: [2008(1)JCR110(JHR)]
Author: M. Karpaga Vinayagam
Bench: M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Narendra Nath Tiwari
JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.
1. Cr. Appeal No. 307/01 arises out of an order dated 3.5.2001 passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby the ad interim order of attachment dated 30.8.1996 was made absolute under the provisions laid down under Section 5(3) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. Cr. Appeal No. 310/2001 arises out of the consequential order appointing Receiver on 12.6.2001.
2. The short facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows:
Pursuant to the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court, C.B.I took up investigation in Fodder Scam cases and registered cases against several accused. Allegation in brief is that the accused persons, in pursuance of a conspiracy, defrauded Government of Bihar, now Jharkhand, to the extent of several crores during the period 1/990 to 1994 on the basis of fake allotment letters purported to have been issued by the Director, A.H. Department, for purchase of medicines. Fake supplies were shown by the suppliers and money was withdrawn on the basis of fake allotment orders and the same was misappropriated by the accused persons, suppliers, public servants and others. Dr. S.B. Sinha, who was a public servant, was involved in all 41 cases as he was the brain behind the conspiracy, as a result of which Government of Bihar was defrauded to the tune of Rs. 600 Crores.
Investigation conducted revealed that accused, Dr. S.B. Sinha, acquired huge moveable and immoveable properties in his name and also, in the names of his wife, children and others at different places while functioning as Regional Joint Director, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi and that the holders of the properties acquired by him are the appellants who are closely related to the said Dr. S.B. Sinha. The appellants do not have any source of income to acquire those properties, but they are simply name-lenders. Apprehending the disposal of those properties hurriedly; respondent-C.B.I filed an application on 29.8.1996 before the District Judge for the attachment of the properties lying in the jurisdiction.
On 30.8.1996 ad interim order of attachment was passed and thereafter the order was extended from time to time. On 21.2.1997, the opposite party-appellants filed their show cause. On 25.10.199 Dr. S.B. Sinha died. However, proceedings continued as against other persons in whose names the properties were purchased. Ultimately, on 3.5.2001 final order was passed making the ad interim order of attachment absolute. Thereafter consequential order was passed by appointment of the Receiver to manage those properties by the order dated 12.6.2001. Both these orders are under challenge in Cr.Appeal Nos. 307 & 310 Of 2001 respectively.
3. The only point urged by the counsel for the appellants is that when the main allegation is against Dr. S.B. Sinha who died on 25.10.1999, the impugned orders dated 3.5.2001 and 12.6.2001 cannot be passed against a dead person and the appellants, his relatives, who are not accused. Further it was contended that though the conjoint reading of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Ordinance would provide that before making the ad interim order of attachment absolute, the parties should be given opportunity to load evidence to substantiate that the properties of appellants are not liable for attachment, the same has not been given to them.
4. On this point, we have heard the counsel for the parties.
5. According to the counsel for C.B.I, after the ad interim order of attachment was passed, notices wore sent to the appellants and others; they have appeared and filed their show cause. Thereafter they were regularly appearing through their lawyers. In spite of repeated adjournments given by the court below giving opportunities to take proper steps to produce evidence under Section 5(2) of the Ordinance, they did not avail of opportunities, nor produced any evidence. The criminal proceedings of Animal Husbandry Department Scam cases against so many persons are still in progress and if it is finally held by the Special Court that the amount was defrauded by late Dr. S.B. Sinha, the same is to be collected by selling those properties so that the loss of the Government is recouped.
6. We have carefully considered the respective submissions.
7. On perusal of the records, it is seen that several opportunities were given by the court below to the appellants for adducing evidence and detailed orders had been passed on 15.4.1999, 24.5.1999 and thereafter on 7.12.1999, giving opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence and ultimately on 3.2.2000 specific order was passed finally adjourning the matter to 22.2.2000 warning the parties that unless parties produce evidence for investigation under Section 5(2) of the Ordinance in the next hearing, final order would be passed. Even thereafter the matter was adjourned to 29.2.2000 and again to 28.3.2000. Since these opportunities were dot availed of by the appellants, the court below ultimately was constrained to pass final order on the basis of available records on 3.5.2001 and the consequential order on 12.6.2001. Therefore, the contention that the opportunities were not given to the appellants is not correct.
8. Records would reveal that interim order was passed on 30.8.1996 and the notices were served on the appellants and show cause on behalf of the appellants were filed on various dates. In the meantime, ad interim order of attachment was extended by adjourning the matter to various dates. Then petitions were filed by the opposite party-appellants raising the preliminary issue and the same has been dismissed as the opp. parties did not evince any interest in the matter. As indicated above the matter was posted 15.1.2000 and 3.2.2000, on which dales nobody appeared. Therefore, another opportunity was given by adjourning the matter to 22.2.2000 and again the matter was adjourned to 28.3.200, 3.5.2000, 8.6.2000, 6.7.2000, 13.7.2000, 20.7.2000, 4.8.2000, 18.9.2000, 9.11.2000, 27.11.2000, 14.12.2000, 8.1.2001, 25.1.2001, 15.2.2001, 5.3.2001, 26.3.2001, 19.4.2001 and 24.4.2001. On these dates, opportunities were being given to adduce evidence on behalf of opposite party-appellants. It is a fact that they did not adduce evidence. Ultimately final order was passed on 3.5.2001.
9. Now the counsel for the appellants would contend that even though they did not produce evidence during the enquiry, as they are having now the materials to prove their defence, the matter should be remanded to the court below to enable them to produce them to prove that those properties were purchased out of their own income. Strangely, no explanation has been offered as to why the opportunities given by the court/below by way of several adjournments have not been availed of by them.
10. It is to be pointed out that court below in the final order would give a specific finding that the opposite parties have adopted delaying tactics to delay the matter. This observation, in our view, cannot be said to be without any basis.
Hence, we are constrained to dismiss these appeals, being devoid of any merit.
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
11. I agree.