Ram Babu Gupta v. State of Bihar — 1997 DIGILAW 475 (PAT)

ORDER The petitioner in apprehension of his arrest in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 40 of 1997 under Sections 403/406/420/468/ IPC has moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bait. It appears that he had moved the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh for anticipatory bail, which was rejected on 1.3.1997. 2. The case relates to defalcation and misappropriation of huge amount of money by the petitioner, which was payable to the decree holders as compensation for the land acquired by the State Government. 3. From the order of the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, it appears that several complaints were received by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh from the decree holders about the misappropriation of the compensation amount by the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, ultimately constituted a committee headed by the 5th Addl. District & Sessions Judge and other judicial officers for making a thorough inquiry into the matter. The matter was inquired into by the committee and a report was submitted. On inquiry, it revealed that on 6.4.1991 and 20.6.1991, orders were passed by the then presiding officer of the court of Subordinate Judge-I; the court ear-marked for L. A. case, for handing over the bank draft of the decretal amount to the petitioner in contravention of the established financial rules, instead of directing payment either to the decree holder or for depositing the said amount in court. Orders were passed by Sri T. Hussain the then Subordinate Judge IV and Sri Ramgopal Pandey, the then Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh. The learned Sessions Judge sent a copy of the report to the Subordinate Judge I for follow up action, including prosecution of the lawyers found guilty of defalcation. It appears that a copy of the letter was sent by the Subordinate Judge-I Hazaribagh to the officer-incharge, Sadar P.S. Hazaribagh for instituting a case and investigation thereof. It further transpires from the inquiry report that by order dated 6.4.1991 passed by Sri T. Hussain, the then Subordinate Judge-IV, a bank draft for Rs. 1,85,97,603.77p (rupees one crore, eighty five lakhs, ninety seven thousand, six hundred three and paise seventy seven only) was assigned to the petitioner and sent to the Bank with a forwarding letter by the then presiding officer for payment to the petitioner. Similarly, by order dated 22.6.1991, Sri Ram Gopal Pandey ordered for payment of Rs. 49,08,911/- to the petitioner. 1,85,97,603.77p (rupees one crore, eighty five lakhs, ninety seven thousand, six hundred three and paise seventy seven only) was assigned to the petitioner and sent to the Bank with a forwarding letter by the then presiding officer for payment to the petitioner. Similarly, by order dated 22.6.1991, Sri Ram Gopal Pandey ordered for payment of Rs. 49,08,911/- to the petitioner. It shows that the petitioner was never authorised by the awardees to receive the award amount and to deposit the same in his own name in the Bank. The report further shows that the petitioner never paid any part of the compensation amount to the awardees, except Rs. 11,598/-. It further appears that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 670 lakhs to Sri B.N. Dey, senior advocate. The inquiry committee found that the awardees had never authorised the petitioner to pay Rs. 25,00,000/- (rupees twenty five lakhs) to Sri B.N. Dey by way of his professional fees. From the inquiry report, it appears that the petitioner retained a substantial amount with him and not paid the same to the awardees. Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that whatever amount of compensation the petitioner received on behalf of the awardees, the same have been paid to the awardees and nothing is lying with him. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to various documents annexed with the petition to show that the awardees have also accepted to have received the compensation amount. Further, the amount paid to Sri B.N. Dey, Advocate has also been accounted for. Learned Counsel submitted that a compromise petition has been filed before the District & Sessions Judge and the awardees have agreed to withdraw their complaints against the petitioner. 4. Mrs. Indrani Sen Chaudhury, Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail inasmuch as, admittedly, the petitioner illegally received the amount in his name and kept the same in his own account in the Bank. It was only after complaints were made by the awardees that part of the amount has been paid to them. Learned counsel further submitted that Sri B.N. Dey, Advocate also illegally and dishonestly received a substantial amount in the garb of his illegal fee. Mr. A.K. Rashidi entered appearance on behalf of some of the awardees and filed written statement. It was only after complaints were made by the awardees that part of the amount has been paid to them. Learned counsel further submitted that Sri B.N. Dey, Advocate also illegally and dishonestly received a substantial amount in the garb of his illegal fee. Mr. A.K. Rashidi entered appearance on behalf of some of the awardees and filed written statement. The learned counsel seriously disputes the payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- (rupees twenty five lakhs) to Sri B.N. Dey, Advocate. The learned counsel further submitted that till date some of the awardees have not been paid the amount of compensation by the petitioner. 5. I have gone through the entire facts of the case and the documents available on the record. It appears that this petitioner also came to this Court in Civil Revision No. 567/96(R) against the order dated 4.12.1996 passed by the Subjudge-I Hazaribagh, in Execution Case No. 84 of 1990, rejecting the petitioner's prayer either to drop or stay the inquiry against the petitioner. In the said revision application, this court while disposing the application directed the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh to supervise and control investigation of the original case instituted against the petitioner and the District Judge, Hazaribagh, was also directed to co-operate with the investigation agency. The Superintendent of Police was also directed to send monthly report about the progress of the case to the District Judge, Hazaribagh. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that prima facie, the petitioner has been found guilty of defalcation and criminal breach of trust. The offence is serious in nature and no case has been made out for grant of anticipatory bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below and move for regular bail, which will be disposed of in accordance with law. It appears from the committee report that some other persons/advocates are also involved in the scam. The investigating agency must take cognizance of the said report as it appears that those names have not been included while lodging the prosecution. 7. It appears from the committee report that some other persons/advocates are also involved in the scam. The investigating agency must take cognizance of the said report as it appears that those names have not been included while lodging the prosecution. 7. Before parting with the order, I am constrained to observe that the conduct of the two judicial officers namely Tabarak Hussain and Ram Gopal Pandey needs separate inquiry in order to find out the bonafide of these officers in passing the said orders as the offence alleged is serious in nature which is evident from the report of the committee. 8. The Registry is directed to bring it to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice for doing the needful in its administrative side. Copies of the report(s) of the inquiry committee and the order of the District & Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, together with this order be sent to the Hon'ble Chief Justice. 9. This application is dismissed with the above observation and direction. Application Dismissed.