Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 682 (JHR)

Anosh Ekka v. State of Jharkhand

2010-06-28

AMARESHSWAR SAHAY, DILIP KUMAR SINHA

body2010
ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is for quashing the prosecution initiated against him by the Vigilance Department of the State Government and also by the Enforcement Directorate of the Central Government and to issue a writ by habeas corpus declaring the detention of the petitioner in custody to be illegal mainly on the ground that the Provision of Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Indian Evidence Act and Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable in the District of Ranchi which is a Scheduled Area since these Acts have not been brought into force by the Governor in exercise of the powers u/s 92 of the Government of India Act, 1935 or Para-5 of Schedule Vth of the Constitution of India. 3. It is submitted that the District of Ranchi has been declared as Schedule Area. The aforesaid Acts, i.e. the Provision of Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Indian Evidence Act and Code of Criminal Procedure are excluded from its applicability from the Scheduled Area unless it is made specifically applicable by issue of a notification to that effect as envisaged under para-5 of the Vth Schedule of the Constitution. Since no such notification has been issued by the Governor of the State and, therefore the aforesaid Acts/ existing laws do not apply in the District of Ranchi which is a Scheduled Area and, therefore, any prosecution launched against the petitioner either under the Indian Penal Code or under the Prevention of Corruption Act or under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is illegal. 4. It appears that the petitioner had moved for the same relief before the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 33/2010, which, after hearing the counsel, was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 09/04/2010. However, at the request of the petitioner liberty was given to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. 5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he while holding the post of a Minister for a considerable period in the State of Jharkhand had, by misusing his official position and resorting to corrupt practices amassed huge wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. 5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he while holding the post of a Minister for a considerable period in the State of Jharkhand had, by misusing his official position and resorting to corrupt practices amassed huge wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. For those allegations, FIR was instituted under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Vigilance has already submitted charge sheet in the said case after completion of the investigation. 6. Further according to the allegations, the petitioner also indulged himself in the process of activity with the proceeds of the crime and projected it as an untainted property and, therefore, the case was lodged under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act by the Directorate of Enforcement and after completion of the investigation a complaint was filed against the petitioner u/s 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 7. The plea raised by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. The law is just otherwise. Para-5 of the Vth Schedule of the Constitution provides that the Acts of Parliament or of the legislature apply to the Scheduled Areas also but the Governor has the power to exclude the operation in the Scheduled Area by a Notification. In absence of any such a Notification, the law shall be applicable to the Scheduled Areas also. The Provision of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as well as the Provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act is applicable in all the parts of the country including the Scheduled Areas. Unless and until the applicability of these Acts are expressly excluded by a notification by the Governor in exercise of the power under Para-5 (1) of the Vth Schedule of the Constitution of India it cannot be said that these laws are not applicable in the Scheduled Areas. The petitioner has failed to show that by any notification, the Governor of the State has excluded the Scheduled Area of Ranchi from operation of the Indian Penal Code; Code of Criminal Procedure, the Evidence Act or the Prevention of Corruption Act and Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The writ application is wholly misconceived and for the reasons stated hereinabove, has got no merit. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.