Jharkhand High Court
Devender Nath Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 February, 2014
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 931 of 2013
Devender Nath Pandey ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
Mr.Baleshwar Yadav, Advocate.
For the State : A.P.P.
------
5/ 14.2.2014Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-V, Koderma, in G.R Case No. 308 of 2011, whereby, an application filed by the petitioner under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C., for discharge, has been rejected by the Court below.
3. The petitioner has been made accused in Koderma P.S Case No.160 of 2011 corresponding to G.R Case No.308 of 2011, for the offence under Sections 420, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was working as an Assistant in the office of the District Agriculture Officer, Koderma and there is allegation against the then Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer-cum-District Agriculture Officer, Koderma, the petitioner and one M/s Gentech Farms, Ranchi, for misappropriation of the Government money in construction of twelve tropical poly houses at the cost of Rs.22,40,000/-.
4. From the F.I.R., it appears that twelve beneficiaries were chosen for construction of tropical poly houses in their agriculture fields and the District Agriculture Officer was given the direction by order dated 5.10.2009 for taking steps for construction of the said tropical poly houses. It is alleged that on the same date, the then District Agriculture Officer got the quotations from three firms and selected M/s Gentech Farms, Ranchi, (herein after referred to as the 'construction firm'), for construction of the poly houses. Thereafter, without entering into any agreement, the said construction firm was advanced of Rs.21,09,000/, being 95% of the amount, on 12.10.2009 through cheque, which was against the prevalent practice, as 80% of the amount could have been paid to the construction firm only after getting the materials and the rest 20% of the amount was to be paid after the construction of the poly houses were completed. It is again alleged that the said District Agriculture Officer was already transferred on 30.9.2009 and his successor-in-office had come to take the charge on 12.10.2009, but he was given the charge on 14.10.2009, after making the payment of advance money to the firm. It is further alleged that even thereafter on 22.10.2009 the bill of the construction firm was passed and the remaining amount of Rs.1,11,000/- was also -2- paid to the construction firm without getting the measurements of the work done, and this payment was also made by the same accused, who had already been transferred and relieved from the post. Upon inquiry, it was found that the work was not done according to the prescribed measurements and even the quality of the work was not according to the prescribed standards. Making these allegations, the F.I.R was lodged against the then District Agriculture Officer, the concerned Assistant, who was in charge of the cash and the cheque registers, i.e., the petitioner, and the construction firm.
5. It appears that upon investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the cognizance was also taken. The petitioner challenged the order taking cognizance in this Court in Cr.M.P. No.455 of 2012, which, according to the petitioner, was disposed of with the liberty to raise his points at the time of framing the charge. However, the said order was neither brought on record in the Court below, nor has been brought on record in this case. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his application for discharge in the Court below, which has been rejected by the Court below, stating that the prima facie offence under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner also, for misappropriation of the Government money and accordingly, the application was dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, before filing the F.I.R., there was an inquiry as ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. The said inquiry report has been brought on record as Annexure-8 to the application, submitting that the same was only against the then District Agriculture Officer as well as the construction firm, and there is no allegation against the petitioner, but the F.I.R has been lodged against the petitioner without any material. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner was only an Assistant in the office of the District Agriculture Officer and whatever allegations are there, they are either against the then District Agriculture officer or against the concerned firm, and there is no allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R, except stating that the petitioner, being the in-charge of the cash register and cheque register, was also involved in the occurrence. Learned counsel also submitted that the investigation against the accused District Agriculture Officer is still pending and charge-sheet has not yet been submitted against him, but still the petitioner is being forced to face the trial, without bringing the main culprit to book. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case for discharging the petitioner, and the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
-3-7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has pointed out from the case diary that during the investigation, it was found that the then District Agriculture Officer, who is also the accused in this case, had already been relieved from his office on 14.10.2009 and still, the records were placed before him by the petitioner and the final payment was made to the firm on 22.10.2009. It has also been submitted that upon inquiry, it was found that the constructions were not properly made according to the prescribed measurements, and even the quality of the work was not according to the prescribed standards. Learned counsel for the State, accordingly, submitted that the involvement of the petitioner in the entire occurrence cannot be ruled out at this stage and in view of the fact that the charge-sheet has also been submitted against the petitioner after investigation, the application filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rightly rejected by the Court below and there is no illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned order, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has disputed the fact that the accused District Agriculture Officer had already been relieved and his successor-in-office had been handed over the charge on 14.10.2009, and it is the case of the petitioner that the accused District Agriculture Officer had actually handed over the charge on 23.10.2010. Be that as it may. This being the disputed question of fact, this Court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot entertain the same.
9. After having heard the learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the impugned order, I find that the Court below has recorded its subjective satisfaction on the basis of the materials on record that there are sufficient materials for framing the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the State from the case diary that at the relevant time, the petitioner was the custodian of the cash as well as the cheque registers and he had produced the same before the accused District Agriculture Officer even after he was relieved from the office and the payments were made to the concerned firm illegally and without following the prescribed procedures. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner was not involved at all in the offence and in my considered view, the Court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for discharge.
10. In view of the aforementioned discussions, I do not find any illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned order, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
BS/ ( H. C. Mishra, J.)