Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 599 (PAT)

Narendra Kumar Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2000-04-20

M.L.VISA

body2000
Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. This application by sole petitioner has been filed for quashing order dated 1.2.1994 passed by the special Judge (Vigilance), South Bihar, Patna, in special case No. 74 of 1986 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29/86 taking cognizance under Sections 467, 468, 471, 409, 477-A, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 13(2), read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and others, and for quashing entire criminal prosecution against the petitioner followed by the aforesaid order. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that Arun Kumar Singh, Vigilance Inspector, lodged a written report on 1.10.1986 addressed to Officer-in-charge of Vigilance Police Station, Patna alleging therein that the petitioner who at the relevant time was posted as Prakhand Vikas Padadhikari, Lakhisarai, Munger, in conspiracy with his subordinate staff and officers defalcated a sum of Rs. 50,000/- of the Government money by preparing false record in respect of construction of 4 private dug wells for irrigation purpose. It was further alleged that the petitioner made payment in respect of aforesaid wells on the recommendation of Junior Engineer, without inspecting the site and in fact in one case no tube well was sunk and in other case the tube wells sunk were not according to the sanctioned size. It was also alleged that the petitioner got the work executed through one Rajendra Jha alias Nepali Babu who instead of paying 90% of Government subsidy to Harijan applicants paid only at the rate of Rs. 16 each per day. On the basis of aforesaid written report Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29/86 under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered (Annexure 1) and the police after investigation on 25.1.1994 submitted charge-sheet (Annexure 2) which was received in Court on 1.2.1994. On the basis of charge-sheet cognizance against the petitioner and others was taken and processes were issued against them. The petitioner surrendered before the Court below on 27.6.1995 and filed a petition stating therein that he had already been granted bail in this case and prayed for allowing him to remain on that bail and his prayer was allowed. 3. On the basis of charge-sheet cognizance against the petitioner and others was taken and processes were issued against them. The petitioner surrendered before the Court below on 27.6.1995 and filed a petition stating therein that he had already been granted bail in this case and prayed for allowing him to remain on that bail and his prayer was allowed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that since his appearance before the Court below, he is regularly appearing in person on each and every date fixed in the case by the Court below but till the date of filing of this application not a single chit of paper or document on which the prosecution proposes to rely its case has been served upon him and the mandatory provisions of Section 207, Cr PC have not been complied with which amounts to infringement of his fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On the facts of the case, the stand of the petitioner is that entire allegations levelled against him in the FIR have been inquired into by the District Development Officer, Munger under the orders of the District Magistrate, Munger who after thorough inquiry submitted a detailed report (Annexure 4). An inquiry was also conducted by District Development Commissioner, Munger, under the orders of District Magistrate, Munger who also found that the petitioner has been made victim of local politics and who also submitted report (Annexure 5). District Panchayat Raj Officer, Munger also made an inquiry on each and every allegations made in the FIR and who also submitted his report (Annexure 6) and thereafter the Deputy Development Commissioner, Munger informed the Government that the allegations made against the petitioner in the FIR were found to be incorrect and the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges on enquiry made by the different sets of officers (Annexure 7). 4. The petitioner relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bishwanath Pd. 4. The petitioner relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bishwanath Pd. Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1994 (Suppl.) SCC 97, Santosh De V/s. Archana Guha, AIR 1994 SC 1229 ; 1994 (2) East Cr C 539 (SC), and a decision of this Court in the case of R.K. Mandal V/s. State of Bihar, 1997 (1) PLJR 103 :1997 (1) East Cr C 578 (Pat), has prayed for quashing entire criminal proceeding of the case under consideration against him on the ground of abnormal delay in trial. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that after taking cognizance of the case, he appeared before the Court below on 27.6.95 and since then he is regularly taking steps on each and every date fixed in the case by the Court below but till date copies of police papers have not been supplied to him. The petitioner has filed the copies of order-sheets of different dates of the Court below (Annexure 3). From the perusal of these order sheets it appears that after surrender of petitioner before the Court below the case for some time remained pending for the appearance of other co-accused persons, thereafter the case was fixed for supply of police papers to accused persons and on 27.11.1998 copies of police papers were supplied to three other co-accused persons. On the next date which was 15.12.1998 copies of police papers were supplied to one more co-accused, namely Nepali Jha. It is not known why on these two dates copies of police papers were not supplied to petitioner. The order dated 17.4.1999 shows that copies of police papers were ready and accused persons were directed to remain physically present so that copies of police papers may be supplied to them. On that day the petitioner was physically present. The order dated 22.5.1999 shows that out of 8 accused persons 5 had already been supplied copies of police papers and remaining three including the petitioner have not received the copies of police papers and a direction to these co-accused persons was given by the Court below to receive copies of police papers on the next date. The same direction again followed on the next day, i.e. on 22.6.1999. In spite of it, the case of the petitioner is that he has not received the copies of police papers. 6. The same direction again followed on the next day, i.e. on 22.6.1999. In spite of it, the case of the petitioner is that he has not received the copies of police papers. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department at the time of hearing argument has produced a photo copy of a petition said to have been filed by the petitioner on 20.9.1999 stating therein that police papers kept with the record are incomplete because paragraphs 256 to 272 were not available in the case diary and he made a prayer to the Court for supply of police papers including these paras. Although no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Vigilance Department but then filing of this petition by the petitioner before the Court below has not been challenged. Notwithstanding this petition the order-sheets of the Court below show that in spite of the fact that copies are ready for supply the petitioner is not receiving the same. No doubt in investigation of the case much delay has been caused and there has been some delay in complying the order of the Court below for supply of police papers but then if the petitioner on one ground or the other is not receiving the copies of police papers, he has got no right to come to this Court with a prayer for quashing entire criminal prosecution only on the ground that copies of police papers have not been supplied to him. The petitioner himself is adopting delaying tactics causing delay in the trial. I therefore, find that the prayer of the petitioner for quashing criminal proceeding cannot be allowed. 7. The petitioner is directed to receive copies of police papers and if he has got any objection he may raise the same before the Court below and if he does so the Court below after hearing the parties will pass appropriate order. The Court below is further directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably, within six months from the date of production/receipt of the copy of this order. Any delay in trial caused at the instance of petitioner will not be included in the aforesaid time frame. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the application stands dismissed.