Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1289 (PAT)

Sanjay Kumar Bhartiya v. State Of Bihar

2009-10-12

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. The question raised in the present writ application is with regard to maintainability of prosecution for theft of electricity on basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the Vigilance Department. The question also is whether at all any offence can be said to be committed with reference to the Prevention of Corruption Act. These similar issues are apparently subject matter of Cr.W.J.C. No. 269 of 2008 that case had been admitted for hearing. By order dated 17.4.2009 passed in the present case, this case has also been admitted for final hearing and tagged along with the said case. In that case (Cr. W.J.C. No. 269 of 2008) an interim order was granted regarding no coercive steps against the petitioner of that case. Similar prayer is made in this writ petition. 2. Subject to petitioners cooperating with investigating agency in matter of investigation, no further coercive steps would be taken in the matter as against the petitioner subject to such other orders that may be passed by this Court. 3. While doing so, I am overruling the submission of State counsel wherein it is submitted that this Court, in this writ jurisdiction lacks jurisdiction to review order passed earlier in terms of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The sub-mission is only noted to be rejected. 4. Firstly an interlocutory application was filed clearly bringing on record that while the other writ petition was admitted, stay was granted and therefore stay must also be granted in this case. Bench hearing the matter refrained from granting stay as by then the roster had changed and the criminal writ jurisdiction cases were assigned to another Bench. It is under that circumstance, this case has now been listed before this Court. 5. So far as writ jurisdiction is concerned, it is governed by Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and is not controlled or the powers therein are not restricted by any Act or Court because it is well settled that any legislation which restricts or bars the remedy under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution would be ultravires the Constitution. A judicial review under Article 226 and 227 are basic features of the Constitution which can not be taken away. 6. This Court having found that the issues involved in the two writ petition are similar. A judicial review under Article 226 and 227 are basic features of the Constitution which can not be taken away. 6. This Court having found that the issues involved in the two writ petition are similar. This Court prima facie feels that similar interim order should prevail to maintain consistency. It is because of that this order is being passed. Investigation will not suffer because petitioners are bound to cooperate in the investigation. 7. The Interlocutory application thus stands disposed of.