Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 716 (JHR)

Purushottam Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-05-07

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT : By Court.-Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Vigilance as also learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. The instant revision application is directed against the order dated 30.1.2006 passed in Special Case No. 30/1989 by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, whereby the petition for discharge of the petitioner filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. The instant revision application was filed on 19.8.2006. Thereafter, notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have appeared in the case. The petition remained pending for the last three years, hence, at the stage of admission itself the application has been heard at length. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. and during investigation the petitioner's name cropped up and he was added as party on 27.1.1994. He has submitted that there is no evidence against the petitioner to frame charges u/ss 409, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has further submitted that for the same offences a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner has been exonerated in the said departmental proceeding. Petitioner has filed the order passed in the departmental proceeding as annexed in the petition. He has relied upon the decision reported in "1999 (Vol.9) Supreme Court Cases page 1, P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar". The petitioner has also submitted that the order of sanction is defective since the same has not been passed by the Board. He has annexed the copy of the Bihar State Electricity Board Conduct of Business Regulations, 1973 to show that only the Board can dismiss the petitioner, Executive Engineer and as such the sanction must be granted by the court, He has thirdly argued that since last so many years the witnesses are not examined in the case and as such the petitioner's right for speedy trial is being hampered. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Vigilance has submitted that it appears from the impugned order as well as from paras 411 and 421 of the case diary that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he removed the meter from the premises of Mis Usha Alloy & Steel Limited, 'Adityapur. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Vigilance has submitted that it appears from the impugned order as well as from paras 411 and 421 of the case diary that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he removed the meter from the premises of Mis Usha Alloy & Steel Limited, 'Adityapur. The allegation against the petitioner is that he stealthily removed the damaged trivector meter on 30.4.1987 when the said trivector meter was taken from the premises of Mis Usha Alloy & Steel Limited, Adityapur, It is alleged that the history sheet of that meter was prepared by several persons namely Subodh Narayan, Vijay Bhushan Prasad. Murali Manohar Prasad and the petitioner, Purushottatm Singh, all officers of the Electricity Board by putting their signature. It is further alleged that the said meter was kept in car which was used by the petitioner and the said car came out of the premises of the Mis Usha Alloy & Steel Ltd. occupied by the petitioner and Murali Manohar Prasad. It is also submitted that the petitioner was liable for the storage of the said meter in the store-room, but he did not deposit the said meter in the said store-room. It is further submitted that the learn,"},l trial court after finding prima facie case against him as passed in the impugned order, rejected the prayer for discharge. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the State that as per Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, no order passed by the trial court can be disturbed only because there is some error in the order of sanction. Moreover, he has submitted that the impugned order of sanction has been passed by the Board which will appear from the regulations filed by the petitioner himself. It is also submitted that the accused persons are only responsible for the delay in the trial. The petitioner filed this revision application in the year 2006 and kept the same pending on one ground or other till 2009. Similarly other accused persons namely B.K. Jhavar preferred writ application before the Hon'ble High Court which remained pending for 7 years. Then he went in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and finally the writ was dismissed. Then again he has preferred revision against the order of discharge. So all the accused persons are responsible for the delay. 6. Similarly other accused persons namely B.K. Jhavar preferred writ application before the Hon'ble High Court which remained pending for 7 years. Then he went in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and finally the writ was dismissed. Then again he has preferred revision against the order of discharge. So all the accused persons are responsible for the delay. 6. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board has submitted that at the stage of 227 Cr.P.C. the document which the petitioner wants to rely cannot be looked into. He has relied upon the decision reported in "2005(1) S.C.C. page 568 State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi" and the decision reported in "1996(3) Eastern India Criminal Cases page 810 State of Orissa vs. C. Panda. 7. After hearing both the parties and going through evidences on record, it appears that the learned trial court after discussing the entire prosecution case against the petitioner found that there is direct allegation against the petitioner. The allegation in the F.I.R. that the officers of the Bihar State Electricity Board in connivance with the owners of the Usha Alloy Steel Ltd., Adityapur during 33 months from April 1986 to December 1'988 gained about 4 crores rupees by committing electric theft from the Board main meter which was said to be damaged and that damage meter was removed by the petitioner and as such there is prima facie case against the petitioner. So far as the sanction is concerned, it is alleged that the sanction should have been granted by the Board. It appears that the sanction order has been issued under the signature of the Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board by the order of the Board. The petitioner has filed the B.S.E.B. Conduct of Business Regulations, 1973 and as per Section 15 which reads as "The Secretary will be responsible for properly carrying out of the decisions of the Board". Thus, it appears that although the order has been signed by the Secretary, but he has signed the same on behalf of the Board after the decision taken by the Board. Moreover, this matter will be looked into in detail during the trial and at this stage as per Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the order taking cognizance cannot be disturbed. The third contention which the petitioner's counsel has raised that in the departmental proceeding he has been exonerated. Moreover, this matter will be looked into in detail during the trial and at this stage as per Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the order taking cognizance cannot be disturbed. The third contention which the petitioner's counsel has raised that in the departmental proceeding he has been exonerated. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in 2005(1) S.C.C. page 568" by the judgment of three Judges, it has clearly stated at para 6 that at the stage of framing charge, the trial court is required to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. Further it has been held at para 23 that at the stage of framing of charge, the accused has got no right to produce any material or document for consideration of the court which will be looked at the stage of trial. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at para 29 as under "regarding the argument of the accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code and Article 226 of the Constitution is unlimited whereunder in the interest of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajal Lal Case". 8. In the facts and circumstances, at this stage the order passed in the revision in the departmental proceeding cannot be Jooked into. Moreover, the order which has exonerated the petitioner in the departmental proceeding is not in par with the criminal proceeding which is taken on evidence. Hence, I find no illegality in the impugned order. 9. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the revision application and the same is accordingly dismissed.