Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1221 (JHR)

Mahesh Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-09-02

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar, J.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This revision is directed against an order dated 26.02.2002, by which order Shri Piyush Kumar, learned judicial magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi rejected the petition of the petitioner filed for his discharge in Gr. Case No. 2914 of 1991 giving a finding that from the evidences available on record, it is evidently clear that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner came before this Hon’ble Court in Cr. Misc. Case No. 5153 of 1993 (R) along with C.W.J.C. No. 195 of 1991 (R) for quashing the F.I.R. and investigation of Kanke P.S. Case No. 97 of 1991 started against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and the application was dismissed with an observation that the petitioner can once again agitated the matter at the time of framing of the charge by the trial court, hence he had filed the aforesaid application and the learned trial court when considering the points raised before him rejected the same, hence this revision application. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it will appear from Annexure 6 at page 42 of the plea that on the same allegation under resolution of the Vice-Chancellor, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi an enquiry was started against the petitioner and it will also appear that while Annexure 8, the enquiry report submitted by Shri R. Kerketta, E.O., Director, Extension Education, B.A.U., Ranchi. The petitioner was exonerated from the charges and hence the petitioner cannot be tied from the said offence again in this criminal proceeding and hence the learned trial court ought to have discharge the petitioner. The petitioner further submitted that the basis on which the F.I.R. was lodged has found not true during enquiry and as such there is no case against the petitioner and the contention of the proceeding is illegal and the trial court without considering the fact rejected the application only giving a finding of prima facie case against him on the basis of evidence available on case diary and is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 5. 5. The petitioner has relied in a decision reported in 1996 (IX) SCC Page 1, in the case of P.S. Rajya Vrs. State of Bihar. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is relying on the enquiry report submitted by enquiry officer, which is Annexure 8 page 47, which is not based on any offence rather only by the construction of the petitioner showcase the same has been based in order to save the petitioner, and as such, the learned trial court while rejecting the prayer rightly found that even the ruling on which the petitioner has relied i.e. Annexure 1 while refusing to quash the application found at Para 6 that there is no bar under law that a criminal case cannot be instituted for the same matter where a departmental enquiry is present or his concluded case both stand on different plans. Learned Hon’ble High Court while disposing of C.W.J.C. No. 195 of 1991 of Annexure 1 relied on the decision of Supreme Court reported in 1996 (IX) SCC Page 1 before Supreme Court in 1461 and other decisions clearly came to a finding that only on the basis of finding of departmental proceeding a case cannot be quashed. Moreover, it has also been held in the case of State of Orissa Vrs. D.N. Padh in 2005 (1) SCC Page 568 that at the stage of framing of charge, the court cannot look into any document filed by the accused nor can rely on any previous enquiry report in any departmental proceeding and as such the revision application is bad to be set aside. 6. After hearing both sides and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the trial court has fully considered the arguments of the petitioner and found that at the stage of departmental proceeding in the court Annexure 8 cannot be looked into as decided in the case of the petitioner itself in C.W.J.C. No. 195 of 1991 (R) wherein the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the proceeding and the F.I.R. was refused only because the departmental enquiry on the same allegations have concluded. Moreover, I find that in the case of State of Orissa Vrs. Moreover, I find that in the case of State of Orissa Vrs. D.N. Padh in 2005 (1) SCC Page 568 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also stated in clear words that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court was required to consider only the materials concluded by the investigating officer during the investigation and no document filed can be relied. The court has also considered the case on which the petitioner is relying at Para 22 and stated that the case of P.S. Rajya Vrs. State of Bihar on which the petitioner is relying cannot be a basis for looking into any departmental enquiry report at the stage of framing of charge. That case was decided by Supreme Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and 482 of the Cr.P.C. and it is not relevant for the purpose of discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. 7. Thus, as discussed above, I find no merit in the revision application. The trial court has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner and has fully discussed the points raised by him in his application for discharge and I find no illegality in the same. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed. 8. Office is directed to send back the lower court record immediately, since the trial has already been delayed since 2002 and the court is directed to proceed since the trial should conclude the same at an early date. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this revision application is accordingly dismissed.