Patna High Court - Orders
Parmeshwari Sinha & Ors vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vigilance on 7 March, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.24153 of 2010
1. PARMESHWARI SINHA W/O K.P. SINHA @ KALIKA PRASAD SINHA R/O ROAD
NO. 23, S.K NAGAR, P.S. BUDHA COLONY, DISTRICT- PATNA
2. ANITA SINHA W/O HARI KRISHNA YADAV, R/O R/O ROAD NO. 23, S.K
NAGAR, P.S. BUDHA COLONY, DISTRICT- PATNA
3. SUNITA SINHA W/O CHOTE LAL SINGH YADAV, R/O R/O ROAD NO. 23, S.K
NAGAR, P.S. BUDHA COLONY, DISTRICT- PATNA
4. SUSHMA SINHA W/O ISHWAR CHANDRA SINHA R/O R/O ROAD NO. 23, S.K
NAGAR, P.S. BUDHA COLONY, DISTRICT- PATNA
5. ALAKA YADAV W/O RAJIV RANJAN SINHA, R/O R/O ROAD NO. 23, S.K
NAGAR, P.S. BUDHA COLONY, DISTRICT- PATNA
..................... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR THRU.VIGILANCE
............. Opposite Party
-----------
2. 07.03.2011Heard the parties.
The petitioners are aggrieved with the order dated 1.6.2009 passed by Special Judge, Vigilance, Ist Patna in Special Case No. 22/2000, by which charges have been framed against the petitioners under Section 120-B I.P.C. read with Section 420,467,468,471,477A, 109 and 193 of I.P.C. and Section 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) of the P.C. Act.
The case of the prosecution is that one K.P. Sinha who was in the Indian Administrative Service acquired assets beyond his means for which the present case was instituted.
The specific allegation against the petitioner no.1 is that her husband had purchased certain property in her name but giving the name and address of her father to screen the fact that she was related to the accused K.P. Sinha and his disproportionate assets. The allegation against the rest of the accused is that false source of income was shown by them in their Income Tax returns to channelise the black money of the accused K.P. Sinha and convert it into white.
It has been submitted that no offence under the Penal Code whatsoever is made out, in view of the fact that there is no allegation that the petitioners cheated any one or committed forgery or falsified any document. Further submission is that since the petitioners were not public servants, they could not be prosecuted under the provisions punishable under the P.C. Act.
In support of his contention, he relies on a decision reported in 2010 Vol.1, P.L.J.R. 731 (Lalita Devi Vs. State of Bihar through Vigilance) where under similar situation the family members of the Public Servant were discharged from the liability of prosecution by this court.
Since, in criminal cases it is facts, which decide the issue, and from the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner the facts are not clear, I am unable to accept that the case decided covers this case as well.
Discussing further the facts of the case, it is undisputed that there is documentary proof that the petitioners were beneficiaries of the ill-gotten money of the husband/father-in-law/ father and, therefore, at this stage there is no denying that a strong suspicion exists against them that they had complicity in the matter, which at this stage is enough to put them on trial.
Moreover, the petitioners are also charged under Section 120-B I.P.C., which is a substantive offence, on the reasonable material that they were co-conspirators.
In view of the discussions above, seeing no merit in the application, the same is dismissed.
Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J. )