Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 333 (JHR)

Mithilesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2011-04-15

JAYA ROY

body2011
JUDGMENT Jaya Roy, J.-Petitioner has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for issuance of an appropriate order or direction for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 546-I dated 30.12.2010, as also the order dated 3.1.2011, whereby, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner by the Court of Sri B.K. Khan, learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, in connection with Vigilance Case No. 58 of 2010 corresponding to Special Case No. 75 of 2010, for the offence under Section 7/13 (2) read with Section 13( 1)( d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The Counsel of the petitioner submits that the prosecution case as per the allegation made by the complainant namely Sadhu Oraon, in brief, is that the land comprises of an area 40 acres and 23 decimals out of which 30 acres of land has been given in possession of Nathu Oraon and thereafter Nathu Oraon and his five sons are cultivating the said lands and the rent is being paid to the Government. For the aforesaid land, a case was initiated in which the decree was passed in favour of the complainant and after the said decree, he had made an application before the concerned Circle Officer, Bero for measurement of the disputed land and giving him possession over the said land. After completing all the formalities and process, the office of the Circle Officer, Bere has referred the matter before the Settlement Officer, Ranchi. Thereafter, complainant has contacted the office of the Settlement Officer with respect to the -settlement of the said land and at that occasion, he has complained that Sri Baleshwar Baraik, In-charge Settlement Officer, his office clerk Shri Mithilesh Kumar and peon Maqsood Ansari had demanded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of illegal gratification for the land getting measured and for handing over the possession of the same. After much persuasion, they have agreed to take a sum of Rs. 50,000/- at the time of passing of the order and the remaining amount will be paid thereafter. But he has said that he does not want to pay any gratification. Hence, he has made complaint before the Vigilance Police Station. 3. The Counsel of the petitioner further submits that he is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. But he has said that he does not want to pay any gratification. Hence, he has made complaint before the Vigilance Police Station. 3. The Counsel of the petitioner further submits that he is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. He has further submitted that the petitioner is a Government servant and working as an office clerk in the office of the District Settlement Officer, Ranchi and he has an unblemished career. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not co-operated the complainant in his illegal deeds .as he was asking for deleting the name of one Birsa Oraon from the deed of record which is the reason for filing the complaint against him by the complainant. 4. The counsel of the petitioner further submits that the order of sanction has not given by the competent authority (the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Officer, Ranchi) as the same authority who has passed the order of sanction, has mentioned in his letter no. 2797(ii)/Law dated 30.12.2010 that as he was not the appointing authority or the authority empowered to remove the petitioner from the service since the power of sanction is not vested with him and requested the prosecuting agency to report it to the Director, Land Record and Revenue Department, Government of Jharkhand. But utter surprising on the same day, he (the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Officer, Ranchi) has given sanction order for prosecution of the petitioner. The letter dated 30.12.2010 is annexed as Annexure-5 in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. It is further pointed out that the sanction order which is annexed as Annexure-3 in the main application clearly shows that the sanction order is dated 30.12.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Officer, Ranchi. Therefore, the sanction order is not passed by the proper and competent authority in this case. Thus, the sanction order and the order taking cognizance are fit to be quashed in respect of the petitioner. 5. The Counsel of the Vigilance Mr. Nilesh Kumar has submitted that it is true that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Officer, Ranchi has sent a letter to the prosecuting authority to enquire about his right to sanction vide letter dated 30.12.2010. But earlier also, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Officer, Ranchi had sent a letter dated 16.12.2010 in this regard to the Director, Land, Record & Measurement, Jharkhand, Ranchi. Nilesh Kumar has submitted that it is true that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Officer, Ranchi has sent a letter to the prosecuting authority to enquire about his right to sanction vide letter dated 30.12.2010. But earlier also, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Officer, Ranchi had sent a letter dated 16.12.2010 in this regard to the Director, Land, Record & Measurement, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The said letter is annexed in the counter affidavit as Annexure-A filed in this petition. Thereafter, in view of the aforesaid letter, the Deputy Secretary, Land Revenue Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide letter no. 3981 dated 28.12.2010 informed the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Officer, Ranchi that he is the competent authority for sanctioning for prosecution of the petitioner. Therefore, the sanction order could be issued by him. The said letter dated 28.12.2010 is annexed as Annexure-B in the counter affidavit filed in this petition. As the letter dated 28.12.2010 was not placed before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Officer on one or other reason, he again sent a letter to the Director, Land, Record & Measurement, Jharkhand, Ranchi. But when the letter dated 28.12.2010 was placed before him, he after considering the materials and the necessary papers produced before him, passed the sanction order on the same date i.e. 30.12.2010. Therefore, the plea taken by the counsel of the petitioner that on 30.12.2010 the sanctioning authority enquired about his right regarding granting sanction and on the same day he has given the sanction for prosecution in respect of the petitioner is absolutely wrong. As the letter dated 28.12.2010 was not before the Deputy Commissioner, he sent another letter on 30.12.2010 but as soon as the aforesaid letter dated 28.12.2010 (Annexure-B) was placed before him, he passed the aforesaid sanction order. 6. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the counsel for the Vigilance has further submitted that it has come in the investigation that after receipt of the complaint and verification, a trap was conducted and the petitioner was arrested while accepting the illegal gratification/tainted money. Therefore, there are the sufficient materials against the petitioner to proceed against him. 7. Considering the submissions made by the parties and after going through the records of this case, I find that the sanction has been granted by the competent authority and there is no illegality in the sanction order. Mr. Nilesh Kumar has rightly pointed out as because the letter no. 7. Considering the submissions made by the parties and after going through the records of this case, I find that the sanction has been granted by the competent authority and there is no illegality in the sanction order. Mr. Nilesh Kumar has rightly pointed out as because the letter no. 3981 dated 28.12.2010 sent by Deputy Secretary, Land Revenue Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand. Ranchi was not placed before the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner sent another letter dated 30.12.2010 in this regard to the Director, Land, Records & Measurement, Jharkhand, Ranchi. But when the aforesaid letter dated 28.12.2010 was placed before him, he after going through the papers and considering the matter, passed the sanction order for prosecution in respect of the petitioner. Furthermore, as there are sufficient materials regarding acceptance of illegal gratification against the petitioner, I do not find any illegality in the order taking cognizance dated 3.1.2011. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.