Jharkhand High Court
Sushil Oraon @ Sushil Uraon Aged About 55 ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 18 May, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 JHA 231
Author: B.B. Mangalmurti
Bench: B.B. Mangalmurti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2710 of 2018
------
Sushil Oraon @ Sushil Uraon aged about 55 years, son of Late Sibanus Oraon, resident of Village Baltharwa, P.O.-Chama, P.S.-Chanho, District- Ranchi .... .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Department .... .... .... Opp. Party With Cr.M.P. No.3959 of 2018
------
Abhay Kumar Singh, aged 54 years, son of Late Bansilal Yadav, Resident of Sherullahpur, Nandigaon, P.O.+P.S.-Shastrinagar, District-Patna, Bihar .... .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through State Vigilance Department (Anti Corruption Bureau) .... .... .... Opp. Party With Cr.M.P. No.2671 of 2018
------
Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, aged about 62 years, son of Late Manindra Prasad, resident of Flat No.305A, Shailja Apartment, Matwari, P.O.+P.S.+District-Hazaribagh .... .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through State Vigilance Department .... .... .... Opp. Party With Cr.M.P. No.1287 of 2017
------
Sushil Oraon son of Late Sibanus Oraon, resident of Village Baltharwa, P.O.-Chama, P.S.-Chanho, District- Ranchi .... .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through State Vigilance Department .... .... .... Opp. Party With Cr.M.P. No.1567 of 2018
------
Sushil @ Sushil Oraon aged about 55 years, son of Late Sibanus Oraon, resident of Village Baltharwa, P.O.-Chama, P.S.-Chanho, District- Ranchi .... .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through State Vigilance Department .... .... .... Opp. Party With Cr. Revision No.1676 of 2018
------
1. Bijay Kumar Agarwal @ Vijay @ Bikash aged about 55 years
2. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal aged about 60 years
3. Nawal Kishore Agarwal aged about 50 years 2 All are sons of Late Daulat Ram Agarwal, Resident of Sheoganj, Harmu Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand through Department of Vigilance (Now Anti- Corruption Bureau), Ranchi .... .... .... Opp. Party With Cr. Revision No.762 of 2018
------
Bijay Kumar Agrawal @ Vijay Kumar Agrawal, age about 54 years, son of Late Daulat Ram Agarwal, Resident of Sheoganj, Harmu Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Department of Vigilance, Ranchi, Now Anti Corruption Bureau, Ranchi .... .... .... Opp. Party With Cr.M.P. No.3000 of 2013
------
Ajit Kumar Azad, son of late Vikramaditya Sinha, Resident of 1-B, Rajendra Nagar, P.O. Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Kadma, District-Patna (PIN-800016) .... .... .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand through Vigilance .... .... .... Opp. Party With Cr.M.P. No.2026 of 2016
------
Mangal Kachhap, son of Gondla Kachhap, resident of Kadru, P.O.- Doranda, P.S.-Argora, District-Ranchi .... .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through State Vigilance Department .... .... .... Opp. Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate Ms. Vishakha Gupta, Advocate Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vishal, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No.762 of 2018, Cr.M.P. Nos.1676 of 2018 &.3270 of 2018) Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, Advocate Mr. Amrendra Pradhan (In Cr. M.P. Nos.1287 of 2017, 3959 of 2018, 2026 of 2018, 1567 of 2018, 2710 of 2018 and 2671 of 2018) Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwari, Advocate (In Cr.M.P. No.3000 of 2013) For the A.C.B. : Mr. T.N. Verma, Spl. P.P., A.C.B. (In all cases)
------
3C.A.V. ON: 07.05.2019 PRONOUNCED ON: 18.05.2019 All these cases arises out of Vigilance Police Case of the year 1995 for which separate vigilance cases were lodged for mass scale irregularities committed in purchase/supply of insecticides in different divisions of Forest Department causing loss to the State Government. Since the facts and allegations are common in nature, therefore they are disposed of with this common order.
2. The prosecution story in aforementioned cases are common. As per F.I.R., members of Zila Parishad, Panchaiti Raj Samiti, Bihar Vidhan Sabha during an enquiry held that between the period 1988-89 to the year 1990-91 on the basis of non-existing company as well as on the basis of forged documents and bills submitted showing supply of Alderin dust 5% and Aldrex-30EC to the Department of Forest. The case was lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Department of Vigilance.
The committee of Bihar Vidhan Sabha found that non-existing firm being M/s Allied Agro Chemical Industries, Deoghar had supplied Alderin dust 5% and Aldrex-30EC insecticides during the relevant year 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 to the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar in 11 Divisions to the tune of Rs.22,48,093.14 paise (Rupees Twenty two lacs forty eight thousand ninety three and paise fourteen). The committee could not find proprietor of these fake firms who had received payments, so recommended for lodging of case to the State Government for taking action. In this context, Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Bihar by annexing the said report of Bihar Vidhan Sabha Samiti requested the Vigilance Investigation Bureau for lodging case. Accordingly, several Vigilance P.S. Cases were lodged including Vigilance P.S. Case No.60 of 1995 lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After lodgment of the case, preliminary enquiry was made by the Vigilance Bureau in different division and it came to their knowledge that these 4 scam were not only going on in those 11 Divisions rather it was being committed in other Forest Division also. The facts appeared during the investigation by Vigilance Bureau that so called suppliers in conspiracy with the officials of Forest and Environment Department, who were posted in different Forest Division by conspiring and misusing official position, caused misappropriation of several crores of rupees by showing fake purchases and supplies of insecticides by the proprietors of these fake firms causing loss to the Department of Forest, Government of Bihar.
(i) Mohan Lal Murarka and his son Arun Kumar Murarka, resident of A.P. Colony, Gaya, were proprietor of so called firm "Krishi Vikash Bhandar, Manpur, Gaya, Gramin Vikash Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa and Allied Chemical Industries, Barmasia, Deoghar.
(ii) M/s Vijay Kumar Agarwal,, Rajendra Prasad Agarwal and Nawal Kishore Agarwal, all sons of Daulat Ram Agarwal, resident of Sheoganj, Harmu Road were proprietors of Bhumi Viksh Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi.
(iii) Madho Lal Agarwal and his son Manoj Kumar Agarwal and Rajesh Kumar Agarwal resident of Arya Samaj Road, Daltonganj, were said to be proprietor of M/s Vasundhara, Katchari Road, Daltonganj, Ranchi. M/s Chittal Enterprises, Arya Samaj Road, Daltonganj, Garhwa and M/s Kheti-Bari, Indira Gandhi Road, Garhwa.
(iv) Ashok Kumar Gadodia, Vishwanath Kumar Gadodia, Vijay Kumar Gadodia, Vimal Kumar Gadodia, and Om Prakash Gadodia, all sons of Hulal Chandra Gadodia resident of Mohalla Bakri Bazar, Gari Khana Road, Ranchi were running firm as Neo Plastic and Chemical Agency, Upper Bazar, Ranchi.
These fake firms were being utilized by their owners for submission of bidding and were showing supply of insecticides worth crores of rupees to the different Forest Divisions for which separate vigilance cases were being lodged.
3. The further case is that when the Government decided in the 5 year 1991 that the purchases of insecticides will not be from the local firms then aforesaid fake companies/suppliers closed their firms as well as closed their bank accounts, therefore, it is apparent that all these firms were fake firms without any existence and were mainly dependent on the fake supply of insecticides to the Department of Forest.
4. It was found during enquiry by the Vigilance Bureau that Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi was neither registered in the Commercial Tax Department or Industries Department nor its physical existence were found in Ratu Road, Ranchi. Actually, it was fake firms run by the sons of M/s Daulat Ram Agarwal, Sheoganj, Harmu Road, Ranchi. The proprietors of this fake firm by conspiring with Joint Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection), Bihar, Patna got supply order in which the proprietor of this fake firm was shown as Vikash Kumar as proprietor but its parentage or address was not mentioned with a view that no steps could be taken against this fake firm nor any information with regard to the proprietor Vikash Kumar could be obtained. The license of this fake firm namely Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi was not renewed after 23.11.1988. Joint Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection), Ranchi has informed to the Vigilance Bureau that license of M/s Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road was never renewed or any new license was issued to the firm. Vijay Kumar Agarwal as proprietor of fake firm M/s Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi had opened account in Vijaya Bank, Ranchi and in the account opening form Vijay Kumar Agarwal mentioned name of his father as Daulat Ram Agarwal and address as Sheoganj, Harmu Road, Ranchi. Through this firm Vijay Kumar Agarwal had shown fake supply of insecticides to Social Forestry Division, Hazaribag and other divisions and had also received several lacs of rupees as illegal payment. Vijay Kumar Agarwal in conspiracy with his two brothers had also opened account in Bank of India, Ranchi Branch as fake proprietor in the fake name as Vikash Kumar Agarwal. Through this account also Vijay Kumar Agarwal and his brothers by making conspiracy and forgery, received illegal payment by showing supply of 6 insecticides through this paper firm to Social Forestry Division, Hazaribag and other divisions. Several papers showing false/fake supply of insecticides were being prepared at Ratu Road, Ranchi by Vijay Kumar Agarwal in connivance with his brothers Rajendra Prasad Agarwal and Nawal Kishore Agarwal and they were also involved in preparation of fake papers in the name of this fake firm showing proprietor as Vikash Kumar Agarwal. Although this fake firm was being run by Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Ratu Road, Ranchi, Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, and Nawal Kishore Agarwal. They were also using some fake firms which existed only on papers and were also used for submission of bidding as well as for preparing comparative rate chart in the tender. Name of this fake firms were M/s Krishi Dhan, Main Road, Lohardaga, M/s Evergreen Centre, Court Compound, Ranchi, M/s Dharti Vikash, Ratu Road, Ranchi, M/s Bhumi Ratna, Circular Road, Ranchi. These firms were neither registered in the Commercial Tax or Industries Department and they did not obtain any license in sale/purchase of insecticides. These firms were not having any physical existence rather these firms were Pocket Firm of these three brothers.
5. Vijay Kumar Agarwal, son of Daulat Ram Agarwal had also opened Kamal Industries, Sheoganj, Harmu Road Ranchi in the year 1987 which was registered from District Industries Centre, Ranchi by registration dated 12.10.1985. From this firm, Vijay Kumar Agarwal with other two brothers managed to show fake supply of polythene tube. Another proprietorship firm M/s Balaji Chemicals, Sheoganj, Harmu Road, Ranchi was opened by Vijay Kumar Agarwal with his brother Rajendra Prasad Agarwal and through this firm on several occasion different articles were shown to have been supplied to the Department of Forest and Environment. Another firm M/s Balaji Hardware Store, Sheoganj, Harmu Road, Ranchi was also opened by this family through Rajendra Prasad Agarwal as proprietor and this firm on different occasion had supplied various hardware items on different occasion to the Department of Forest.
6. During the year between 1980-81 to 1990-91, the fake supply of 7 insecticides were shown to have been supplied through these fake firms which were running only on paper and the proprietors of these firms managed to receive illegal payment in which amount of Sales Tax were also included but these firms neither in Ranchi nor in other places deposited the amount of Commercial Tax or any Income Tax arising out from these payments.
Vigilance Bureau also found that the fake firm Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi during the year 1980-81 to the year 1991-92 no purchase of even single gram of Alderin 5% dust were made from any manufacturing company but shown to have supplied huge quantity of insecticides to the Department of Forest and Environment.
It was claimed by this fake supplier that the 5% Alderin dust was purchased from renowned manufacturing company namely, Northern Mineral Limited, New Delhi but during enquiry Vigilance Bureau was informed by Northern Mineral Limited, New Delhi through his letter dated 5th February, 1994 that the company had never supplied insecticides to M/s Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi or any other fake firm like Gramin Vikash Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa, M/s Allied Agro Chemical Industries, Deoghar, Neo Plastic and Chemical Industries, Upper Bazar, Ranchi, Kishan Ghar, Main Road, Garhwa. The purchase of 5% Alderin dust by the Forest department were made without inviting any tender or by advertising in the newspaper, nor any quotation was invited from the renowned manufacturing firms or from authorized sales stockiest. As per Government direction/circular, conditions of purchase applicable in the year 1984 was bypassed and knowingly the purchases were made through fake and non-existing firms by the officials of department. By making conspiracy, illegal payments were paid/received and it was encashed through those fake bank accounts.
7. On the basis of above facts, Vigilance Thana lodged the case and conducted investigation in the matter. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted in several cases in which involvement of these accused persons transpired. The officials of Department of Forest and Environment as well as suppliers who were accused in different 8 Vigilance P.S. Case have filed application for quashing of F.I.R., order taking cognizance as well as against the dismissal of discharge application by the court below. Aggrieved against such orders, these accused petitioners have approached this Court.
Cr.M.P. No.2710 of 2018Petitioner-Sushil Oraon @ Sushil Uraon at the relevant time was posted as Range Officer in Social Forestry Range, Petarwar under Hazaribag Social Forestry Division. This petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1409 of 2016 in which the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the court below dismissing the discharge application of this petitioner was rejected in Vigilance P.S. Case No.9 of 1995 corresponding to Special Case No.4 of 1995 by the Court of Special Judge, A.C.B., Hazaribag. This Court on consideration of the matter quashed the same with direction to the court below to pass order in accordance with law vide order dated 28.11.2017 passed in Cr.M.P. No.1409 of 2016. Thereafter, the court below vide order dated 21.06.2018 again rejected on the ground that petitioner was involved in the conspiracy and without any supply of insecticides, the same was shown to have been received by them and thereafter caused huge loss to the Government exchequer. The sanction for prosecution have also been granted against this petitioner. The court below relied on a decision of State of A.P. Versus Golconda Linga Swamy & Another reported in (2004) 6 SCC 522 in which the Hon'ble Court has held as under:-
10. ........ At the time of framing the charge it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing commission of offence and involvement of the charged persons. At that stage also evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Charge can be framed, if there are materials showing possibility about the commission of the crime as against certainty.
The arguments advanced on behalf of petitioners and on behalf of A.C.B. and from the materials available on record and looking to the case diary as well as counter affidavit, it is apparent that without inviting any tender or publication of tender in the newspaper merely on the noting of one of the Assistant of Forestry Division, Hazaribagh, 9 purchase of Alderin 5% dust from fake agencies were made and thereafter payments were made in conspiracy with officials of Forest Department and utilization of insecticides were shown. Therefore, no error has been committed by the court below who found prima facie materials against this petitioner to frame charge.
Cr.M.P. No.2671 of 2018This petitioner-Pankaj Kumar Srivastava was at the relevant time posted as Range Officer. This petitioner had earlier moved before this Court for quashing of F.I.R. and order taking cognizance dated 15.02.2007 in Cr.M.P. No.1507 of 2009 which was dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2011 in Vigilance P.S. Case No.9 of 1995 corresponding to Special Case No.4 of 1995 by the Court of Special Judge, A.C.B., Hazaribag. He also moved against the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the court below dismissing the discharge application of this petitioner. This Court on consideration of the matter quashed the same with direction to the court below to pass order in accordance with law vide order dated 28.11.2017 passed in Cr.M.P. No.353 of 2017. Thereafter, the court below vide order dated 21.06.2018 again rejected on the ground that petitioner was involved in the conspiracy and without any supply of insecticides, the same was shown to have been received by them and thereafter caused huge loss to the Government exchequer.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the A.C.B. Cr.M.P. No.1287 of 2017 Petitioner-Suhil Oraon approached this Court for quashing of F.I.R. and order taking cognizance dated 04.12.2010 as well as quashing of order dated 11.04.2017 by which the court below dismissed the application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Vigilance P.S. Case No.7 of 1995 corresponding to Special Case No.03 of 1995 by the court of Special Judge, A.C.B., Hazaribag.
This petitioner had earlier approached this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1613 of 2013 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.11.2018.
As per allegation, this petitioner had issued false receipt 10 regarding supply of pesticide and made entry in the stock register and subsequently indicated its utilization.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the A.C.B. Cr.M.P. No.1567 of 2018 Petitioner- Sushil Oraon approached this Court for quashing of order taking cognizance dated 21.12.2005 as well as quashing of order dated 20.05.2017 by which the court below dismissed the application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Vigilance Patna P.S. Case No.05 of 1995 corresponding to Special Case No.01 of 1995 by the court of Special Judge, A.C.B., Hazaribag.
This petitioner had earlier approached this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1613 of 2013 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.11.2018.
As per allegation, this petitioner had issued false receipt regarding supply of pesticide and made entry in the stock register and subsequently indicated its utilization.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the A.C.B. Cr.M.P. No.3959 of 2018 Petitioner- Abhay Kumar Singh approached this Court for quashing of order dated 06.09.2018 by which the court below again dismissed the application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 60 of 1995 corresponding to Special (A.C.B.) Case No.18 of 1995 by the court of Special Judge, A.C.B., Dhanbad.
This petitioner had earlier approached this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1643 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.01.2018 and the matter was remanded.
As per allegation, this petitioner had issued false receipt regarding supply of pesticide and made entry in the stock register and subsequently shown its utilization.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the A.C.B. Cr.M.P. No.2026 of 2016 Petitioner-Mangal Kachhap approached this Court for quashing of F.I.R. and order taking cognizance dated 03.01.2005 and 11 also quashing of order dated 30.09.2013 by which the court below again dismissed the application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashing of order dated 06.06.2014 by which charge has been framed in Vigilance P.S. Case No.16 of 1995 corresponding to Special Case No.09 of 1995 by the court of Special Judge, A.C.B., Hazaribag.
As per allegation, this petitioner had issued false receipt regarding supply of pesticide and made entry in the stock register and subsequently shown its utilization.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the A.C.B. Cr.M.P. No.3000 of 2013 Petitioner- Ajit Kumar Azad, at the relevant time was Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Garhwa approached this Court for quashing of entire F.I.R., charge sheet and order dated 30.06.2005 by which the court below has taken cognizance in Vigilance P.S. Case No.02 of 1995 corresponding to Special Case No.36 of 2003 pending in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Palamau.
As per allegation, this petitioner had issued supply order to Allied Agro Chemical Company and directed Range Officer of Nagar, Garhwa and Chainpur to receive insecticides from the supplier and on the false receipt regarding supply of pesticide were entered in the stock register and subsequently shown its utilization.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the A.C.B. Cr. Revision No.762 of 2018 Petitioner- Bijay Kumar Agrawal @ Vijay Kumar Agrawal, proprietor of M/s Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi and other non-existing firms which had shown supply of insecticides to different forest divisions has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 23.05.2018 by which the court below has again dismissed his application for discharge filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Vigilance P.S. Case No.14 of 1995 corresponding to Special Case No.08 of 1995 pending in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Hazaribag.
12As per allegation, this petitioner had supplied insecticides to various forest divisions through non-existing fake firms.
He also moved against the order dated 20.05.2017 passed by the court below dismissing the discharge application, preferred Cr. Revision No.814 of 2017, this Court on consideration of the matter quashed the same with direction to the court below to pass fresh order in accordance with law vide order dated 28.11.2017. Thereafter, the court below vide order dated 23.05.2018 again rejected on the ground that petitioner was involved in the conspiracy and without any supply of insecticides, the same was shown to have been received by the officials of Forest Department of various division and thereafter caused huge loss to the Government exchequer.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the A.C.B. I.A. No.7320 of 2018 I.A. No.7320 of 2018 seeking direction upon the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in terms of Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. as the existence of Bhumi Vikash Kendra was found in Vigilance P.S. Case No.52 of 1995 as the petitioner relied on the letter dated 26.08.2014 of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi in this respect.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that further investigation could be ordered under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the existence of Bhumi Vikash Kendra was found in one of the Vigilance P.S. Case No.52 of 1995 and no charge sheet was submitted against proprietor of the said firm. This fact was disclosed by the prosecution by filing response in discharge application filed by this petitioner annexing copy of internal communication between the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Ranchi with Additional Public Prosecutor that since the existence of M/s Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi was found and due to this reason no charge sheet was submitted against this petitioner in Vigilance Case No.52 of 1995. Since investigation in relation to other cases had already been completed and charge sheet/final form had been submitted, no further action could be initiated. Learned counsel 13 for the petitioner submitted that since the firm Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi has supplied insecticides to several other divisions and in those cases on the premise that the physical existence of this firm was not found, the prosecution presumed that the supplies were shown to have been made through a fake firm, therefore, investigation in this regard is very much needed. He relied on a decision of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Sheetla Sahai & Others reported in (2009) 8 SCC 617 and submitted that accused has right for fair investigation and fair trial and he cannot be deprived merely the prosecution is relying certain materials and if the two views are possible then the court shall not put the accused to harassment by asking him to face the trial. He further submitted that re-investigation could be ordered even if the petitioner has approached this Court in revision. He further relied on a decision of Nirmal Singh Kahlon Versus State of Punjab & Others reported in (2009) SCC 441 and submitted that the court has supervisory jurisdiction to ensure a fair investigation and Investigating Officer will have no jurisdiction whatsoever to make any further investigation without the express permission of the Magistrate. He also relied on a decision of Manohar Lal Sharma Versus Principal Secretary & Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 532. In this situation, this Court may order for re-investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even at the time of discharge further investigation could be ordered. Delay of trial is not a relevant consideration and Police can conduct further investigation and should inform the court and seek permission to make further investigation as per the decision of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Versus State of Gujarat & Others reported in (2004) 5 SCC 347. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure have a corrective mechanism at different stage viz. (i) Investigation (ii) Trial (iii) Appeal
(iv) Revision. Thus, the revisional court during the pendency of the trial may exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 in which case, it may direct further enquiry in terms of Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This proposition was held in the case of Popular Muthiah Versus State represented by Inspector of Police 14 reported in (2006) 7 SCC 296. Therefore, this Court may exercise its revisional power as well as its inherent power to order further investigation even at this stage. Even exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the court can exercise inherent jurisdiction to secure just and fair investigation.
Learned counsel for the A.C.B. submitted that there are several fake firms that were utilized for showing supply of insecticides to different forest divisions and huge amount of loss was caused to the State. Charge sheet has already been submitted in these cases and investigation at this stage is neither practicable nor suitable in these cases.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers attached with this application, the court below relying on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Atul Rao Versus State of Karnataka & Another reported in 2017(8) Supreme Today 579 wherein it has been held that a Magistrate cannot suo moto or on an application filed by the complainant/informant direct the further investigation after cognizance has been taken on the basis of earlier report and process has been issued and accused has entered appearance in response thereto. The court below further find that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against accused persons and cognizance has already been taken and in this situation rejected the petition filed by accused persons under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for further investigation. It further appears that the petitioner is depending upon an internal communication between the Superintendent of Police and Additional Public Prosecutor and none other document have been brought on record. In this case, as per allegation the license to deal with trade of insecticides was not renewed as well as the banking transaction and bank operation were all on paper managed by the supplier of the firm only to realize and encash cheque and bank drafts. These bank accounts were closed immediately after the scam was detected. In the decision of Popular Muthiah (supra), it was held that High Court can direct further investigation against persons who were not charge 15 sheeted and were not accused at the stage of trial. This proposition is not applicable here as in the instant case charge sheet has already been filed and cognizance has been taken. In this situation, there is no occasion to interfere in the impugned order. Proprietors of these firms managed to receive illegal payment in which amount of Sales Tax were also included but these firms neither in Ranchi nor in other places deposited the amount of Commercial Tax or any Income Tax arising out from these payments.
In the result, instant I.A. petition is dismissed.
Cr. Revision No.1676 of 2018Petitioner- Bijay Kumar Agrawal @ Vijay @ Bikash, Rajendra Prasad Agarwal and Nawal Kishore Agarwal, proprietor of M/s Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi and other non-existing firms which had shown supply of insecticides to different forest divisions has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 06.09.2018 by which the court below has dismissed his application for discharge filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Vigilance P.S. Case No.60 of 1995 corresponding to Special (A.C.B.) Case No.18 of 1995 pending in the court of Special Judge, A.C.B., Dhanbad.
As per allegation, this petitioner had supplied insecticides to several forest divisions through various non-existing fake firms in connivance with the official of Forest Department.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the A.C.B.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners commonly submitted that unnecessary these petitioners are harassed without any cogent evidence collected by the prosecution. The common submissions on behalf of all the officers were that the petitioners have not received alleged supply of insecticides. These supplies were effected and were properly received by the authorized persons. It was entered into the stock register and thereafter the same were distributed for its utilization. Even the payments of bills were made after the supplies were made. The allegations about non- production of relevant records or presumption that the same were 16 destroyed or kept concealed in locker is baseless. The case of prosecution could not be proved on this mere allegation made in the F.I.R. that the relevant papers are either destroyed or kept outside the official place where these papers are normally to be kept. Non deposit of commercial tax by the supplier firms cannot be a ground for proceeding against these petitioners-officers and they cannot be held liable for it. After lapse of several years, it is difficult to find out the utilization of Alderin 5% dust as the nature of land are such that after lapse of time, it cannot be detected whether the insecticides were used or not used on those particular piece of land. The trial court without any proper appreciation of the fact that investigation was not in its proper form in the eyes of law, and without any reason assigned, dismissed their prayer for discharge. It is submitted that on the similar set of facts, the cases of co-accused namely Mahendra Kardam, Arvind Kumar, Pankaj Srivastava, P. Pugalendi Puga were quashed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No.2331 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.2455 of 2014, Cr. Revision No.938 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No.1143 of 2015 respectively.
This Court in some of the matters finding non-appreciation of material fact, has quashed and remanded the matter for passing fresh order relating to co-accused persons but the court below again rejected the application for discharge which are under challenge herein.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also relied on in case of Rukmini Narvekar Versus Vijaya Satardekar & Others reported in (2008) 14 SCC 1, Nirmal Singh Kahlon Versus State of Punjab & Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441, Union of India Versus Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4, Rumidhar Versus State of West Bengal & Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 364, State of Tamilnadu Versus N. Suresh Rajan & Others reported in (2014) 11 SCC
709.
9. Learned counsel for the A.C.B. submitted that the supply order was issued to the fake firm being run by few suppliers as proprietor of several firms. The officials in contravention of the provisions, without inviting tenders or without inviting quotation from the stockiest of the renowned manufacturing company and/or inviting quotation directly 17 from the manufacturing company, the supply order was issued to the proprietors of these fake firms who were neither registered in the Government Department nor the license for dealing in the insecticides were obtained or renewed at the relevant time but by making conspiracy, the fake supplies were shown to have been received against which fake bills were submitted and the officials have approved for payment. During enquiry, it revealed that scam was not limited to only 11 Divisions of the Department of Forest & Environment but was being committed in several other Forest Divisions causing great loss to the State exchequer. Not a single farthing on account of Commercial Taxes were deposited by these fake firms nor the proprietor of these fake firms have shown/disclosed their income before the Income Tax Department. When the investigation started, then these fake firms which were existing and running on paper, immediately closed their bank account from which the payments were encahsed. The physical existence of these fake firms were not found which indicate the conspiracy part between the officials and the suppliers. Lastly, he submitted that the court below finding sufficient materials against these petitioners, have rightly rejected their prayer for discharge.
10. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners as well as counsel for the A.C.B. and looking to the case diary as well as counter affidavit and from the materials available on record, it is apparent that without following the direction/circular and procedure, purchase of Alderin 5% dust from fake agencies were effected and thereafter payments were made to the suppliers of these fake firms in conspiracy with officials of Forest Department and utilization of insecticides were shown to cover up these fake transaction. In case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Versus Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018(2) JLJR 320, it has been reiterated that consideration of challenge against an order of framing charge may not require meticulous examination of voluminous material which may be in the nature of mini trial. Still, the court is at times called upon to do so in spite of law being clear that at the stage of 18 charge the court has only to see as to whether material on record reasonably connects the accused with the crime. The court further held that at the stage of charge, the High Court adopts the weighing probabilities and re-appreciate the material, it may be certainly a time consuming exercise. The legislative policy of expeditious final disposal of the trial is thus, hampered so in exceptional situation for correcting a patent error of lack of jurisdiction, exercise of such jurisdiction has to be limited to rarest of rare cases.
Therefore, no error has been committed by the court below who found prima facie materials against these petitioners to frame charge.
11. The petitioners could not show the material upon which the F.I.R., charge-sheet and order taking cognizance could be quashed. The large scale fake supply were shown and on that very basis payments of fake bills were effected in conspiracy with the proprietors of these fake firms with the officials of Forest Department. These officials had shown utilization of the insecticides merely on paper.
12. From the materials available on record, it also appears that the suppliers have used several pocket firms to show the supplies made by different agencies although these firms had never purchased insecticides from the manufacturing company. It was claimed by the supplier firm that insecticides were purchased from the renowned manufacturing company namely Northern Mineral Limited, New Delhi but that company had informed through his letter dated 5 th February, 1994 that the company had never sold and supplied insecticides to these fake firms mentioned in the F.I.R. Therefore without purchase of insecticides, these fake firms have shown supply of huge quantity of insecticides to the respective forest divisions and received payment in lieu thereof. Even these fake firms neither paid sales tax/commercial tax to the State Government nor any Income tax to the Central Government showing income derived from these supplies of insecticides to the Forest Department. The fake accounts maintained by these suppliers are also kept operative for the purpose of encashment of payment from the forest divisions and when the 19 enquiry started, these bank accounts were immediately closed to avoid any complication. Therefore, no reason is found for quashing of F.I.R., charge sheet as well as the order taking cognizance of the above mentioned accused petitioners.
13. In this situation, the court below has passed order in its proper perspective after evaluating materials available on record.
14. Hence, abovementioned Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions as well as both Criminal Revision applications are hereby dismissed.
15. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned.
(B.B. Mangalmurti, J.) Anit