Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The extract of the order dated 9th March 2018 as against the present petitioner is as follows:

"It is also clear from perusal of records that C.B.I. Inspector Ajay Kumar Jha conduct investigation in this case, he prepared and drafted of charge-sheet but it is pertinent that in charge-sheet page no.64 that accused persons namely Dr. Md. Sayeed, Shiv Kumar Patwari and Naresh Prasad are to be taken as approver in this case for which separate steps as per law will be taken in due course. It is surprising that when investigation is complete and I.O. found clue that accused persons involve in criminal conspiracy and criminal misappropriation of the government money which was withdrawn from Dumka Treasury during financial year 1991-92 to 1995-96. It is also found that without supplying the material prepared fake and forged vouchers by firms. The AHD employee granted received in favour of funds without receiving supply materials. The Regional Director Shesh Muni Ram and later on Om Prakash Diwakar withdrawn money and illegally paid to the firms. Later on facilitated and hospitalities by this illegal withdrawn money, Ajay Kumar Jha examined in this and P.W.197 dated 6.4.2016 clearly accepted in para-109 that D.C. is custodian of Treasury but do not inquire against D.C. In para-98 accepted that they prepared charge-sheet in the light of documentary and oral evidence in para-99 accepted that Dr. Parimal Chakarborty, time period as Regional Director, AHD, Dumka August 1988 to 14.08.1991 but do not make accused and stated that Parimal Chakarborty is dead. Whereas Parimal Chakarborty is alive and punished in another case. Further in para-66 accepted that Dr. Pitambar Jha who posted in Deoghar suspended due to issued fake supply receipt but they made witness in R.C.64A/1996 as witness and not an accused. Further accepted in para-37 that accused Sanjay Kumar Agarwal live at the resident of Dr. Shesh Muni Ram at Patna and two firm M/s Sanjay Kumar Dumka and others supervise by two boys Pankaj and Niraj S/o Shesh Muni Ram, who also received payment and signature but Ajay Kumar Jha do not inquire and submitted charge-sheet against Pankaj and Niraj S/o Shesh Muni Ram. In this way court found that Ajay Kumar Jha save accused persons of this case and provide a protection of umbrella to accused persons. One more example of A.K.Jha in para-13 and 15 where accepted that Mahendra Prasad conduct account of S.R. Enterprises so they made accused in R.C. 20A/1996 and firm owner Sarswati Chandra do not made accused but in present case R.C. 45A/1996 Sarswati Chandra made accused with her husband Mahendra Prasad because she is firm owner of S.R. Enterprises. Ajay Kumar Jha exercised his power in arbitrary way which shows that they are involved in criminal conspiracy with other fodder scamsters and court found that he misused his post being government employee so he is also liable to prosecute in Prevention of Corruption Act.

(IV) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Dr. Parimal Chakarborty was the Regional Director, AHD, Dumka during the period 1st July 1988 to 31st December 1990 This fact has been certified vide memo no.98 dated 16th March 2018 brought on record as Annexure-3 issued by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka. Learned trial court has on the basis of the deposition of this petitioner at para-99 formed an opinion that Dr. Parimal Chakarborty was posted as Regional Director, AHD, Dumka between August 1988 to 14th August 1991 but he had not been made accused and that he is dead.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has countered this findings of learned Court on this score. He has submitted that apart from the fact that there are no incriminating materials referred to or found as against Dr. Parimal Chakarborty from the deposition of this petitioner in the impugned order, his statement at para-99 indicating the period of his posting up to 14th August, 1991 were based on his memory. He also clarified at the end that he does not remember his period of posting. At paragraph-100 of his deposition as P.W.-197 he had also categorically stated that no materials were found as against Dr. Parimal Chakarborty. He submits that since Dr. Parimal Chakarborty was no longer in the service after 31st December, 1990 as certified by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka through Memo No. 98 dated 16th March 2018 (Annexure-3) and the fact that the instant prosecution related to the period 1991-92 to 1995-96 of fraudulent withdrawals from Dumka Treasury, there was no occasion for the CBI to charge-sheet Dr. Parimal Chakarborty. This observation of learned Court is again based on a completely misplaced understanding. The learned court has also failed to refer to any other incriminating material evidence adduced during inquiry or trial as against Dr. Parimal Chakarborty so far as his involvement is concerned.

8. Learned Amicus Curiae has assisted the Court on the legal points raised by the petitioner. He has also scanned the material available on record on the observations made in the impugned order. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that essential requirement of law in exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the trial court is to assess and evaluate any incriminating evidence which has been brought on record during inquiry or trial against a person, not facing trial, which leads to a prima-facie opinion more than that required at the time of framing of the charge but short of satisfaction to an extent that if the evidence went unrebutted, it could lead to conviction of such a person. In this case the learned trial court has primarily and solely relied upon the testimony of the petitioner himself as a prosecution witness no.197. Learned court has arrived at an inference that this petitioner had not fairly conducted the investigation being the Investigating Officer. Shiv Kumar Patwari and Naresh Prasad referred to in the first part of the order were persons chargesheeted and named as accused in the instant case. The inference of the learned trial court that they were made approvers, may not be attributable to the petitioner. CBI on its part has indicated that decision to chargesheet or accept an accused as an approver was taken at the highest level. There are other observations made regarding one Parimal Chakarborty who was said to be the Regional Director, AHD, Dumka between August 1988 and 14th August 1991 as testified by the petitioner during trial. Petitioner has also stated in the same paragraph that all this was being stated on his memory. On the other hand, the final judgment passed by learned Trial Court in the instant R.C. Case on 19th April, 2018 at paragraph-3 makes it clear that one Dr. Shesh Muni Ram was the Regional Director between January, 1991 and July, 1994. The period of fraudulent withdrawals in this R.C Case No. 45(A)/96 is between 1991-92 to 1995-96. Observations made in respect of Dr. Pitamber Jha mentioned at paragraph-66 of the deposition of this petitioner or in respect of Mahendra Prasad and Sarswati Chandra are in relation to another R.C. Case No. 64(A)/96 and R.C. Case No. 20(A)/96 which were not relatable to the subject- matter of the present R.C. Case No. 45(A)/96.