Jharkhand High Court
Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Lallan Si vs Central Bureau Of Investigatio on 16 November, 2011
Equivalent citations: 2012 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 259 (JHAR.), 2012 (1) AIR JHAR R 425 (2011) 4 JCR 567 (JHA), (2011) 4 JCR 567 (JHA)
Author: Prakash Tatia
Bench: Chief Justice, P. P. Bhatt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No. 5117 of 2011
Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Lallan Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. P. BHATT
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
For the Respondents : Md. Mokhtar Khan, ASGI
------
Order No. 03 Dated 16th November, 2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner
seeking direction against the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) to do its duty and make bonafide efforts
to make expeditious trial of all the cases of conspiracy
involving political leaders and senior bureaucrats in the
cases known as "Fodder Scam Cases" in the State of
Jharkhand. Further direction has been sought that State of
Jharkhand be directed to constitute adequate CBI Courts to
deal with such cases of Fodder Scam and it has also been
prayed that State of Jharkhand should ensure regular
functioning of the Special CBI Courts and expedite the trial
in Fodder Scam Cases being case Nos. RC20(A)/96-Pat,
RC38(A)/96-Pat, RC47(A)/96-Pat, RC64(A)/96-Pat, RC68(A)/
96-Pat and RC63(A)/96-Pat.
2. Before approaching this Court, the petitioner
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the same relief
by submitting Writ Petition (Civil) No. 316 of 2011 which
has been permitted to be withdrawn by the writ petitioner
vide order dated 01.08.2011 with liberty to file a petition
before the concerned High Court. The petitioner, therefore,
has filed this writ petition.
3. For the same purpose and relief, one writ petition
filed by the present very petitioner being C.W.J.C. No. 293
of 2001, is already pending in this Court since 2001.
Several orders have been passed by this Court and the
progress in trial of all those cases are under consideration
in earlier writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 293 of 2001
wherein even order has been passed that the officers
connected with the Fodder Scam Cases shall not be
transferred. Because of the monitoring of this Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 293 of 2001, the CBI submitting the progress
report before this Court and today also in C.W.J.C. No. 293
of 2001 a report has been submitted by the CBI indicating
that out of total 53 Fodder Scam Cases being tried at
Ranchi, 38 cases have been disposed of. In one of the
Fodder Scam Case i.e. RC49(A)/96-Pat, total 61 accused
persons faced the trial and out of them, 58 have been
convicted. It is pertinent to mention here that in all 38
cases which have been decided till now, the accused
persons have been convicted.
4. It has been submitted in report that apart from 38
disposed of cases, in two cases i.e. RC31(A)/96-Pat and
RC52(A)/96-Pat, prosecution evidence have been
concluded. Case No. RC31(A)/96-Pat is at recording of the
statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
whereas RC52(A)/96-Pat is at final argument stage. Out of
15 cases pending trial, 9 cases are at prosecution evidence
stage, 01 case is at the stage of recording statement of
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 02 cases are at defence
evidence stage and 03 cases are at final argument stage.
During the period of this report, 165 prosecution witnesses
and 14 defence witnesses have been examined. Three of
the prosecution witnesses were recalled and they were
discharged after their re-examination. In RC20(A)/96-Pat,
the evidence has started on 18.04.2011, however, the
Presiding Officer of this Court was transferred on
14.09.2011. It will be worthwhile to mention that total 122 accused persons have been examined by the Special Courts in terms of the provision of Section 313 Cr.P.C.
5. We have narrated these facts only to indicate that in the earlier writ petition filed by the writ petitioner himself, the Fodder Scam Case are being monitored and now substantial number of cases have already been decided by the trial courts and in other cases there is a progress. We are all conscious of the fact that cases are very old and of the year 1996, therefore, they are required to be decided expeditiously otherwise also, but in these cases wherein large number of accused persons are involved as well as looking to the involvement of persons, the Court is required to monitor the cases which is being monitored.
6. In view of the above fact, we do not find any just reason to entertain second writ petition for the same relief as prayed in the earlier writ petition filed by the present writ petitioner himself. Therefore, this writ petition No. 5117 of 2011 is disposed of because of pendency of the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 293 of 2001.
7. However, it is made clear that since in C.W.J.C. No. 293 of 2001 the writ petitioner is already party petitioner, therefore, if he wants to bring on record the facts relevant for the purpose of passing any direction by this Court, he will be free to submit the same before this Court.
(Prakash Tatia, C.J.) (P. P. Bhatt, J) Birendra