Jharkhand High Court
Rajiv Ranjan Singh ? Lalan Kr. vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 October, 2012
Author: Prakash Tatia
Bench: Chief Justice, Jaya Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
----
C.W.J.C.NO.293 of 2001
----
Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Lallan Singh ..... Petitioner.
--Versus---
Union of India and Ors. ... ... .... Respondents.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate.
For the C.B.I. : Md. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate.
------
Order No. 83 Dated :31st October, 2012
It was directed to list this matter always as first case in the supplementary cause list. This fact has been taken note of by the office in note sheet dated 21.9.2012, yet this case has been listed in regular cause list at Serial No.19. The Registrar General is directed to hold the enquiry to find out the guilty person and proceed departmentally to take action against the guilty person. The office is again directed to list the present matter at the top of the list as first case in Supplementary Cause List so that it may be taken as first case.
The progress report has been submitted by the C.B.I. The C.B.I. was directed to submit the report containing the signature of the officer on each of the page which has not been done in this case, however, the report is taken on record as submitted by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. in Court.
We have already, in the last order dated 30.7.2012, observed that the Court is not happy with the progress in these cases, the progress of which is being monitored by this Court regularly. We have perused the Status Report submitted by the C.B.I. It is submitted that out of 53 Fodder Scam Cases, 43 have been already decided and that fact has no relevance now as this fact has been already taken note of. Now we are concerned with the remaining ten cases, progress of which has been submitted in this progress report. We found from the page-7 of the report that there may be some typographical mistake or the facts are not clear as it has been mentioned in the last Column at Page-7 that "No D.Ws. were produced for examination on 22 out of 28 dates fixed for this purpose".
It is relevant to mention here that in the same Column, it has been mentioned that 15 out of 22 D.Ws. have been examined for and on behalf of the accused. Therefore, this position may be clarified if on 22 dates out of 28 dates, the witnesses were not produced, then for what reason the case was adjourned is not clear. It is also mentioned that the deadline for the defence witnesses given by the trial court is 01.10.2012.
The C.B.I. is directed to clarify the position whether all the witnesses in the case No.R.C.20(A)/96/AHD/Patna have been examined or not.
Now, in the report at Page -8, it has been mentioned that there are 30 defence witnesses and not a single witness has been examined and the case was adjourned for 20 dates.
The explanation may be sought from the Special Judge-VII, Ranchi in case No.R.C.33(A)/96-Patna to submit the reason for non examination of the witnesses for 20 dates.
The C.B.I. is further directed to submit the specific report that in each case as to how many witnesses yet to be examined. The C.B.I. is also directed to see that the cases be tried expeditiously and they should keep the witnesses present in the court as per the order of the trial court so as to have a fair trial also.
For the above purpose, put up this case on 26th November, 2012.
Copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the C.B.I. Copy of this order be sent to all the courts who are in seisin with these matters.
(Prakash Tatia, C.J.) ( Jaya Roy, J.) Biswas/S