Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 192 (PAT)

Sushil Kumar Modi v. State of Bihar

1997-03-05

S.N.JHA, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body1997
Order We heard these matters on 21st February, 1997. After review of the progress of different cases orders were reserved for today to ensure that further progress is achieved in the cases in which Final Reports (FRs.) have already been filed. The factual position as of date is as follows : 2. Out of 48 cases interim chargesheets have been submitted in 9 cases, namely R.C. 26(A)/96, RC 28(A)/96, RC 33(A)/96, RC 37(A)/96, RC 36(A)/96 (all Patna Branch), RC 32 (A)/96, RC 35(A)/96, RC 53(A)/96 (all of Ranchi Branch) and RC 40(A)/96 (of Dhanbad Branch). Final chargesheet has been submitted in one case, namely, RC 30(A)/96 of Patna Branch. It may be mentioned here that in RC 33(A)/96 interim chargesheet has been submitted with respect to only some of the accused persons, since the approval of the Director, CBI, is required under the CBI Manual with respect to certain categories of persons who figure as accused. The case has been referred to the Director, CBI, for approval. 3. The details of the cases in which FRs. have been submitted and are pending either with the Joint Director or the DIG or the S.P. are as follows: 4. R.C. Case No. 20(A)/96 is pending with the Joint Director since 4.3.97, R.C. Case Nos. 41 (A)/96, 27(A)/96 and 64(A)/96 are pending with the DIG since 27.1.97, 24.2.97 and 27.1.97 respectively. R.C. Case Nos. 63(A)/96, 25(A)/96 and 29 (A) 96 are pending with the S.P., Patna, since 5.2.97, 21.2.97 and 2.3.97 It is said that Case No. 63(A)/96 was earlier cleared by the S.P. but it has been sent to him with certain queries by the Joint Director. 5. During course of hearing on previous occasion, we had been given to understand that depending on the volume of the case, normally, it should take 10 to 20 days to clear particular case from one level to another. We expect that the officers will clear the cases and forward the same to the next higher authority, in the hierarchy at the earliest within the aforesaid time-frame. 6. We have been informed that there is hierarchy of supervising officers and legal advisers in the CBI who scrutinise the Final Reports. We expect that the officers will clear the cases and forward the same to the next higher authority, in the hierarchy at the earliest within the aforesaid time-frame. 6. We have been informed that there is hierarchy of supervising officers and legal advisers in the CBI who scrutinise the Final Reports. In order to reduce the chances of delay on account of difference of opinion at the lower level, i.e. between the S.P. and D.I.G. or between DIG and Joint Director, we would direct that in case of difference of opinion between them the matter is not to be sent down to the lower authority on any pretext but forwarded to the next higher authority in the hierarchy with the comments of the concerned officer(s) so that if difference persists even at the level of the Director, the same is referred to the Attorney General for being resolved in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court. In other words, if there is difference of opinion between the S.P. and/or D.I.G. and/or the Deputy Legal Adivser the matter is to be referred to the Joint Director, and in case of difference between DIG and/or the Joint Director and/or the Legal Adviser it is to be referred to the Director. By adhering to this procedure the pace of scrutiny at different levels can be sped up and submission of charge-sheets can be expedited. 7. We may note that Ranchi has been the seat of the scam and most of the fraudulent withdrawals took place within the jurisdiction of Ranchi Branch. The progress achieved by Ranchi Branch unfortunately has been far from satisfactory. The cases which have been cleared appear to be relatively minor in nature. There have been complaints by the Joint Director in the past against Mr. Dhondial, S.P. Ranchi. Recently there has been complaint by the Commissioner, Income Tax, Ranchi, as well, alleging non-co-operation. The DIG during course of hearing today stated that he personally approached the Commissioner, Income Tax, Ranchi, after the last hearing on 21st February, 1997, and the Commissioner informed him that report alleging non-co-operation was submitted on account of some misunderstanding. It is not necessary to go into that aspact of the matter in details in this order. It transpired during hearing of the case that Mr. A. K. Malhotra has already joined as successor to Mr. Dhondial sometime in middle of February, 1997. It is not necessary to go into that aspact of the matter in details in this order. It transpired during hearing of the case that Mr. A. K. Malhotra has already joined as successor to Mr. Dhondial sometime in middle of February, 1997. We put a question, in the circumstances, to the Joint Director as also Mr. B. K. Shukla, counsel for the CBI, as to whether in view of the posting of his successor, Mr. Dhondial can still handle the AHD scam cases. The Joint Director said in no uncertain terms that he has issued clear instructions that Mr. Malhotra alone should handle the AHD scam cases. Mr. Shukla made similar statement. Neither Mr. Shukla nor the Joint Director, however, was in a position to take clear stand that on joining of Mr. Malhotra, Mr. Dhondial has stopped dealing with the AHD scam cases. We may record in this connection that a definite statement was made by Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners in one of the cases, that Mr. Dhondial has been actively participating in the investigation/supervision of the case and has, in fact, even yesterday interrogated the officers of the Accountant Generals office. If it is fact, we are not able to understand as to how after his successor has joined the post, Mr. Dhondial could handle the AHD scam cases. In order to set at rest any doubt or confusion in this regard we would direct that henceforth Mr. Dhondial shall not supervise or handle or otherwise interfere with the process of investigation/supervision of the AHD scam cases. 8. It appears that one Mr. K. D. Kaul has been notified as DIG Incharge AHD scam cases in addition to his duties as DIG (Co-ordination) Headquarters. Mr. Kaul, however, has not joined the office. It transpired from the statements of Mr. Ranjit Sinha, the present DIG, that no sooner Mr. Kaul joins the post of DIG In-charge AHD scam cases, than he would cease to function as DIG with respect to AHD scam cases. We are not able to appreciate as to how the officer can effectively and expeditiously handle the cases from Delhi and that too in addition to his other duties as DIG (Co-ordination). Kaul joins the post of DIG In-charge AHD scam cases, than he would cease to function as DIG with respect to AHD scam cases. We are not able to appreciate as to how the officer can effectively and expeditiously handle the cases from Delhi and that too in addition to his other duties as DIG (Co-ordination). We would direct the Director, CBI, to consider whether it would not be appropriate to post a fulltime DIG at Patna and give him fullfledged charge of the AHD scam cases instead of giving him additional charge of the post, so that things are expedited. 9. We were also told that one Mr. Kaumudi had joined the Patna Branch as S.P. Incharge AHD scam cases. Presently, he is away on account of some training course and is to join tomorrow. The Joint Director and DIG asked for guidance as to whether after Mr. Kaumudi rejoins the post on his return from training, the present S.P., Mr. Javed Ahmad should continue to handle the AHD scam cases or not. We leave it to the Joint Director to take decision in this regard. 10. Before we conclude, we may mention once again (a fact recorded in our order dated 3rd February, 1997) that on 11th December, 1996 the Director, CBI, had made a categorical statement in person that the investigation into the conspiracy aspect of the case will be completed within three months. In our previous order we had reminded the Director of the aforesaid time schedule. The said period is about to expire. We would like to know at the next hearing, before which the aforeside period of three months would have already expired, whether the conspiracy aspect of the case has been fully and finally investigated or not. We may in this connection record the firm statement of Mr. B.K. Shukla made during last hearing on 21st February, 1997 that there in no dearth of officers and staff to deal with the AHD scam cases. While considering the bonafide of the Director, CBI, in this regard, this aspect of the matter will be borne in mind. 11. We would also like to know the progress of RC 33 (A)/96, which is now pending with the Director, CBI, since 23rd February, 1997, at the next hearing. He shall not close the case on the basis of his individual opinion, as directed by the Supreme Court. 11. We would also like to know the progress of RC 33 (A)/96, which is now pending with the Director, CBI, since 23rd February, 1997, at the next hearing. He shall not close the case on the basis of his individual opinion, as directed by the Supreme Court. 12. List these matters on 28th March, 1997. 13. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Rakesh Kumar, counsel for the CBI, Mr. L. N. Rastogi counsel for the Income Tax Department and Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, counsel for the petitioners.