Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 146 (JHR)

Ramayan Pandey v. Union of India through C. B. I.

2011-03-03

JAYA ROY

body2011
Order Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner has filed the instant revision application for setting aside the order dated 21.8.2010 rejecting the petitioner's application for discharging him for the offences under Sections 120-B, 471, 409 of the I.P.C and Sections 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (c) of the Preventi9n of Corruption Act in connection with R.C case no. 21 (A)/91 (R) pending in the court of Special Judge (C.B.I)-cum-A.DJ. 1st, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R, in brief, is that the petitioner were functioned in different capacities in Bharat Coking Coal Limited from 1972 and is presently working as Superintending Engineer (E & M) in Area VIII of BCCL, Dhanbad, while posted and functioning in the different capacities in BCCL he has acquired assets by corrupt and illegal means which are disproportionate to his known sources of income and for which Sri Pandey cannot account for satisfactorily. During the period of his working in BCCL in different capacities as Colliery Engineer, Executive Engineer, Sr. Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer, he has earned a net salary of Rs. 3,50,000/- approx. In addition, he has taken an amount of Rs. 1 ,25,000/- as house building loan from his Department and has also declared to have taken a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as loan from the relatives. Thus, his total income from all known sources has been Rs. 5,35,000/approx. The expenditure of Sri Ramayan Pandey towards day-to-day household expenses and on the education of his four children, during the period in question, has been to the extent of Rs. 3,20,000/approx. Thus, the likely savings of Sri Ramayan Pandey by deducting the total expenditures of Rs. 3,20,000/- from the total income of Rs. 5,35,000/- comes to Rs. 2.15,000/- only. As against the above amount of likely savings" Sri Ramayan Pandey is alleged to have acquired assets worth Rs,.7, 15,000/- approx. in the form of a double story house at Kusum Vihar, Dhanbad, one Ambassador Car, Hero Honda Motor Cycle, T.V., VCR, Radio, Gold Ornaments, Refrigerator etc. and hence, he is in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/approx. which Sri Pandey cannot satisfactorily account for. 4. in the form of a double story house at Kusum Vihar, Dhanbad, one Ambassador Car, Hero Honda Motor Cycle, T.V., VCR, Radio, Gold Ornaments, Refrigerator etc. and hence, he is in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/approx. which Sri Pandey cannot satisfactorily account for. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner is totally malafide, motivated and without making proper investigation and verification of the facts and evidences. He has further submitted that the petitioner has not given any opportunity to explain the property acquired during the period of his office tenure as a public servant. He has also submitted that his brother Sri Deobans Pandey who has no issue, has sworn in his affidavit before the Notary Public at Dhanbad in the year 1988 where he has specifically declared in the said affidavit that as he has no issue, he was looking after son of his own brother (the petitioner) namely Sri Raj Kumar Pandey and bearing all his educational and other expenses. 5. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation wherein it is stated that the informant and the I.O of the present case Sri Narayan Jha, the then Dy. S.P., C.B.I who has got personal bias against the petitioner as the petitioner was the President of the Coal Mines Officer's Association, B.C.C.L and during the year 1983, a cooperative society was registered under the Societies Act and for the . purpose of acquiring the land from the private persons and for providing the same to the members of the cooperative society for housing purpose. The outsiders who were not the members of the cooperative society and nor employee of the BCCL. were not entitled to get the land from the cooperative society but in, violation of the same, in the year 1988, a sale deed was executed in favour of Smt. Shanti Jha, wife of Sri Narayan Jha who was neither a member of the cooperative society nor an employee of the B.C.C.L and the same was opposed by the petitioner. were not entitled to get the land from the cooperative society but in, violation of the same, in the year 1988, a sale deed was executed in favour of Smt. Shanti Jha, wife of Sri Narayan Jha who was neither a member of the cooperative society nor an employee of the B.C.C.L and the same was opposed by the petitioner. It is also submitted in the said rejoinder that during the year 1985-86, there was a scheme in BCCL that C.M.D. used to recommend the name of the employee for higher education and taking benefit of c the same, one of the relatives of Sri Narayan Jha namely Asha Nand Jha had got himself admitted in B.I.T Mesra without recommendation of sponsorship from the Department of H.R.D. The petitioner had also opposed the same. For these two instances, the said Narayan Jha who is the informant and the I.O. of the present case, has got personal bias against the petitioner and only to take revenge, lodged this case against the present petitioner. 6. It is also argued that the informant and the Investigating Officer is the same person in this case but it is a settled principle of law that the informant and the I.O. cannot be the same person and it is against the principles of natural justice. 7. Mr. Khan, Learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I submits that it has come in the impugned order that during the investigation, three air-conditioners in question were not installed in the Telecommunication office of the Kustur area, for which, the same were re0;uisitioned and issued. Out of the said three air conditioners' in question, one was found in the house of Ramayan Pandey and the remaining two was delivered at the residence of Sri B.K Singh which could not be traced out and are disposed of. Therefore, the said air-conditioners were misappropriated by the present petitioner alongwith another co-accused in criminal conspiracy with each other to the tune of Rs. 78,069.75/-. Mr. Khan has further submitted that not only that. it has also come in the enquiry that the petitioner was not at all entitled for any air conditioner at his residence and as such, the question of issuance of the said air-conditioner to the present petitioner from the store did not arise. Mr. 78,069.75/-. Mr. Khan has further submitted that not only that. it has also come in the enquiry that the petitioner was not at all entitled for any air conditioner at his residence and as such, the question of issuance of the said air-conditioner to the present petitioner from the store did not arise. Mr. Khan has further submitted that there are ample materials against the petitioner to frame the charge under the aforesaid sections against him. Therefore, the court below has rightly rejected his discharge petition. 8. Mr.Khan has further submitted in respect of the contention made by the counsel of the petitioner that I.O. Sri Narayan Jha had personal grudge, has no merit as those are totally personal allegations made by him against the I.O. On other hand, the oral and documentary evidence collected during the investigation clearly establish the commission of the offences against the accused petitioner. Mr. Khan has further contented that the present case has been registered for investigation by Narayan Jha, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SPE/C.B.I./Ranchi under the order of S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the investigation made by him in the present case. 9. From the impugned order, I find that, the trial court after considering the case record and charge-sheet, has come to a finding from the evidence both oral and documentary collected during the investigation clearly establish the commission of the offence against the petitioner. Further more, the aforesaid points raised by the petitioner is not at all tenable at this stage. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. Accordingly this revision application is dismissed.