Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar @ Ani Kr.Grover vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 May, 2009
Author: Narendra Nath Tiwari
Bench: Narendra Nath Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No.1299 of 2004
Anil Kumar @ Anil Kr. Grover. .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ........ Opposite Parties.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Mehta, Advocate.
For the State : A.P.P.
For Opp. Party No.2: Mr. Ray Rajat Nath, Advocate.
------
6/27.05.2009: In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing investigation of Sakchi P.S. Case No.260 of 1985, G.R. No.2105A of 1985.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the informant, who was an Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Jamshedpur in 1985, detected that during their tenure, his predecessor- Sachchidanand Poddar, Excise Inspector- L.M. Nandkeolyar and others, under a deep rooted conspiracy to cheat the excise revenue, managed a showy export of India Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and Beer on the basis of forged import permits to Karaikal, Mahe & Yanam in Pondicherry region and Nasik in Maharashtra. In the documents, it were fraudulently shown that a huge quantity of IMFL and Beer was exported out of Bihar to Karaikal, Mahe, Yanam & Nasik, but actually, the same were sold in black market. The said persons/officials thereby caused a huge loss of excise duty to the State to the tune of Rs.2,17,19,763/- during the period 1983-84. On the basis of the said allegation the case was registered under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 47(A) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against 12 persons. The final form was submitted and the petitioner was not included as an accused, as no material was found against him.
4. Subsequently, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur by order dated 19th August, 1993 accepted the said chargesheet and discharged the petitioner and others against 2 whom there was no material and whose names were not included in the chargesheet.
5. After the case was finally closed against the petitioner, the then Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.I.D., Bihar, Patna, without taking approval of the appropriate authority or competent court of law ordered for re-investigation. On that basis, requisition dated 8th June, 2004 has been also made for issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner and one Sachchidanand Poddar after about 19 years.
6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order of reinvestigation of the case and has challenged the same in this petition.
7. Mr. A. K. Mehta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the matter is of the year 1985. After a prolonged investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the persons against whom sufficient grounds and materials were found in course of investigation. In the said investigation, no material was found against the petitioner and he was not included as an accused. The said chargesheet submitted by the police was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the case was closed against the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the chargesheet submitted by the police after investigation has not been challenged and the proceeding against charge-sheeted persons is still going on. The said investigation and/or final form accepted by the Court has never been challenged or set aside by any court of competent jurisdiction.
8. It has been submitted that the order of reinvestigation of the case by the Deputy Inspector General of Police is wholly without any basis and contrary to law. No order by any competent authority or any court of law having been passed for reinvestigation of the case, the executive instruction of the Deputy Inspector General of Police for reinvestigation of the case afresh is wholly without any legal basis. Reinvestigation of the case, which has been finally closed against the petitioner, 3 after a lapse of two decades is also highly prejudicial to the petitioner. A person cannot be harassed and tortured in the name of reinvestigation and re-interrogation in a case, which has been closed long ago. The petitioner, who is a retired government officer and has been ailing, has been sought to be dragged in the process of reinvestigation, without any legal order in the case, which was closed against him long ago. It has been submitted that the order of reinvestigation is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed.
9. Notice was issued to the informant-Opposite Party no.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party no.2 submitted that he had lodged the first information report in the year 1985 in the official capacity as Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Jamshedpur. The matter was, thereafter, investigated by the police and the chargesheet was submitted against some of the accused persons. The petitioner since retired has got no trace of the case and he has no concern with the said case after retirement, as the first information report was lodged by him in the official capacity. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party no.2 submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 has got no personal interest to contest the said case after his retirement from the service.
10. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has also not disputed the said factual position and contentions.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.P.P. and considered the submissions and the fact that reinvestigation of the case of the year 1985 has been sought by the Deputy Inspector General of Police after several years its closure against the petitioner and without any order of competent court of law or authority, I find the same wholly unjustified. When after investigation no material was found against the petitioner and his name was not included in the chargesheet and the materials collected during investigation and the chargesheet was placed before the learned Chief 4 Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, who after applying his mind closed the case against the petitioner, the Deputy Inspector General of Police has no authority to direct for reinvestigation. Nothing has been brought on record by the opposite parties to show that the Deputy Inspector General of Police has legal competence to pass such order for reinvestigation of the case, which is closed by the order of a competent court of law.
12. That apart, no exceptional circumstance has been brought on record for reopening of the case, which has been closed finally against the petitioner about 19 years ago and long after his retirement from the service. The petitioner has retired from the post of Deputy Commissioner of Excise far back in the year 1994. He cannot be now dragged in the case in the name of reinvestigation, on an order of a Police Officer, without any clear authority of law.
13. In view of the above discussion, it is held that reinvestigation of the case against the petitioner in the aforesaid circumstance by the order of police officer, being not supported by any authority of law, is illegal and without jurisdiction and the petitioner cannot be subjected to interrogation, attendance or any coercive process in the name of reinvestigation of Sakchi P.S. Case No.260 of 1985 (G.R. No.2105A of 1985).
14. This petition is, accordingly, allowed.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/